This is a fine explanation, Bryan. I am angry enough to spit nails. My sense is that he and his ilk care nothing for the citizens of this country (or any other for that matter.)
I understand the anger — it’s a rational response when people sense decisions drifting away from them. I’m trying hard not to frame this as malice or contempt for citizens, though, because that’s often how good people end up talking past each other.
My concern is narrower, and in some ways more troubling: that a managerial class can genuinely believe it’s acting responsibly, even morally, while slowly detaching governance from consent, law, and lived consequences. That’s not indifference so much as distance — and distance is dangerous in its own way.
Oh, so Carney, bagman for the Commonwealth, will end up using this new development in world affairs as justification for greater government control of the people, the government and the economy of Canada.
Sounds about right.
Then again, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
So are you thinking Carney is a good person who wants to communicate with the Canadian citizenry? (I always try to speak calmly and rationally in anger - not always successfully). It seems that his behaviour since his coronation by the Libs has been consistently duplicitous. It would be like negotiating with a 5 year old who has his fingers crossed behind his back. 😆
That analogy is more accurate than it sounds — especially given the timing.
The Federal Court of Appeal didn’t just criticize how the Emergencies Act was used; it reaffirmed that emergency powers have legal thresholds and limits. That was a clear signal: you don’t get to redefine necessity to suit yourself.
And then — almost immediately — we get a rushed confiscation announcement.
That feels less like coincidence and more like institutional finger-crossing: “Fine, you said we can’t do it that way — we’ll do it another.” Same objective, different procedural costume.
This is why I hesitate to frame it as personal virtue or vice. Even if he believes he’s acting responsibly, the pattern is one of bypass rather than engagement. Calm words, crossed fingers.
That’s what erodes trust — not anger, not disagreement, but the sense that rules apply only until they get in the way.
A leopard doesn't change its spots. Carney is a globalist who believes that he/they know what's best for the citizenry.
What we see is not a man who has deep concern for his fellow countryman, we see a man convinced of his rightness and acting to further the grand plan which he sees himself part of.
I can't name a single thing that the guy has done to benefit Canadians or their standard of living. Same for Trudeau.
This is a fine explanation, Bryan. I am angry enough to spit nails. My sense is that he and his ilk care nothing for the citizens of this country (or any other for that matter.)
I understand the anger — it’s a rational response when people sense decisions drifting away from them. I’m trying hard not to frame this as malice or contempt for citizens, though, because that’s often how good people end up talking past each other.
My concern is narrower, and in some ways more troubling: that a managerial class can genuinely believe it’s acting responsibly, even morally, while slowly detaching governance from consent, law, and lived consequences. That’s not indifference so much as distance — and distance is dangerous in its own way.
Oh, so Carney, bagman for the Commonwealth, will end up using this new development in world affairs as justification for greater government control of the people, the government and the economy of Canada.
Sounds about right.
Then again, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
So are you thinking Carney is a good person who wants to communicate with the Canadian citizenry? (I always try to speak calmly and rationally in anger - not always successfully). It seems that his behaviour since his coronation by the Libs has been consistently duplicitous. It would be like negotiating with a 5 year old who has his fingers crossed behind his back. 😆
That analogy is more accurate than it sounds — especially given the timing.
The Federal Court of Appeal didn’t just criticize how the Emergencies Act was used; it reaffirmed that emergency powers have legal thresholds and limits. That was a clear signal: you don’t get to redefine necessity to suit yourself.
And then — almost immediately — we get a rushed confiscation announcement.
That feels less like coincidence and more like institutional finger-crossing: “Fine, you said we can’t do it that way — we’ll do it another.” Same objective, different procedural costume.
This is why I hesitate to frame it as personal virtue or vice. Even if he believes he’s acting responsibly, the pattern is one of bypass rather than engagement. Calm words, crossed fingers.
That’s what erodes trust — not anger, not disagreement, but the sense that rules apply only until they get in the way.
Your instinct isn’t cynical. It’s observant.
A leopard doesn't change its spots. Carney is a globalist who believes that he/they know what's best for the citizenry.
What we see is not a man who has deep concern for his fellow countryman, we see a man convinced of his rightness and acting to further the grand plan which he sees himself part of.
I can't name a single thing that the guy has done to benefit Canadians or their standard of living. Same for Trudeau.