Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "Gad Saad" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. @Wylee Coyotee ... Didn't have ANY rights, prior to 1950's my GD'd ass!  . How about the right to vote in the late teens? Ever stop to think that it was 100% men who were corrupted by politics and wrote the 19th amendment and who twisted Roe out of the 14th? Guess what happened in beginning of the 60's....The Pill! The single worst thing to happen to the male / female dynamic and ushered in the sexual revolution which created the foundation of the OF's women we see sad and lonely in their mid 30's without a family. You know the ones, those who "don't need no man" and aren't getting them, because turns out... men don't like women who sleep around or share their body on the internet. The sexual revolution told men that they no longer had to show honor, respect and chivalry to attract a woman he liked, because she did not fear pregnancy... so she gave it up for free!  . Flash forward 60 years and here you are telling other women they are anti-feminist, because they don't blame men of today for not taking rights away that they already have...WTF? Why are you still complaining? Yes.. women did lack many rights, but 100% of them have been corrected for well over 50 years now (Title IX which is now being dismantled by WOKE cult with the help of women!). If you are not seeking rights, than ALL you are doing, is seeking to look at yourself and women through the lens of oppression or being a victim. This makes men less likely to want to be around you, because bitterness is the only thing that can come of it. . Exactly WHAT good does that do you...? I can tell you.. less than zero! This can only serve to make you unhappy or feel as though lacking and blaming men for it! There is certainly some praise and admiration for women of some 50 years and many years prior, but the sexual revolution was right in the middle and forever damaged the male / female dynamic. . Please... stop buying in to the feminist lie that you need to keep reaching out for "women's rights" when they have them. . Take care and dig the screen name, btw
    1
  29. 1
  30. Heather is a wonderful example of class. I have heard her speak on several interviews / conversations and am ever impressed. Evergreen lost more than they will ever know in more ways than they will ever realize, when they ran Bret & Heather off campus. Yes.... George "Feel free to humiliate me, as I have no spine, no self-respect and willing to be humiliated and ordered to stay put at your whim" Bridges orchestrated the entire uprising of Evergreen. While it is true that the entire campus was filled with spoiled little brat students that were protected from all of life's harm, via helicopter & bulldozer parenting, it was Bridges job to "ween" them from that bubble of protection. He failed not only the students, but the entire facility, faculty, administration and college will likely cease to exist :( EDIT: I will take a bit of an issue with her take on Brett Kavanaugh hearing. To say that "he was that kind of guy" in reference to one who women would best avoid, is what, exactly? I did not know him but maybe he was an entitled, spoiled rich brat that always got his way and was a complete dick to everyone when he was younger. He has been in the judicial system for the last 35 years and there is no evidence that such behavior has affected his rulings. I am not going to make excuses for anyone being an ahole when in his / her youth, but was not relevant to the hearings. If he was a prick, he was a prick, but there were TONS of people in their youth that were ahole's and changed their ways over time. No one can undo harm causes by such people, but pointing out that he was a dick 35 years ago, does not mean he is a dick today. If there is / was evidence that such behavior influenced his rulings, by all means, bring them up at the hearing. If not, then don't use them as a "fall back" position to say he should not be confirmed, because we didn't get him on the other stuff. The accusations against him were unsubstantiated and impossible to prove, but the "he was that kind of guy" anyway, is a BS argument that does not hold water. Using that logic, society just needs to "muddy the water" enough to make somebody look bad and we can then use it as justification to not hire or fire somebody. I think that The Gadfathers explanation is likely the closest to the truth.
    1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49.  Carbon Proksi  ... Well said 🐱I was thinking about this for a few moments after my last comment in this thread. It occurred to me that those who think ideologically, seem to think that those who have an opposing view must ALSO think ideologically. I am sure that in some cases and for some people this is true, but Sam is making the case that those (all) who were skeptical or vax hesitant were responding this way on ideological grounds. That is to say, if one opposed the vax, it was ONLY because others are for it. What he his utterly failing to recognize, is those who were skeptical, because of the data we had and as a pre-caution to over-reaction. I was among those and while we were proven correct in the end, we very well could have been wrong. To this end, I cannot speak for all who were skeptical, but I was willing to change my opinion, had the evidence concluded that this was a bigger life saving threat to the general or child population. The ideologue will make no such concession, as their position will remain constant to seemingly no end. There are certainly those who WILL change their opinion, but takes a MASSIVE amount of evidence that is conclusive. . Then we have the true cult! Those who will double-down 100% of the time and NEVER allow new information to update their initial response. We have seen this time and time again with the MarxistCrats, but up until the last year or so, I never would have imagined that Sam Harris would be among them. Now, I DO think that he will come around one day, because while he is ideologically driven currently, he was not indoctrinated to ONLY respond in this manner. He will one day look back and recognize how he sold his principles for an ideology and have a very difficult awakening.
    1
  50. 1