Ryan nailed the contradiction.
Coyne mocked cancelling Canada Day, then wrote a column accusing Conservatives of having a patriotism problem. When the hypocrisy was pointed out, he hid behind sarcasm and called everyone else irony-deficient.
That is the standard elite establishment trick: sneer at the countryโs traditions, excuse every failure of the governing class, then question the patriotism of Canadians who want lower taxes, secure borders, national unity and a government that puts Canada first.
CPC supporters do not love Canada less because they reject Liberal decline. They love it enough to demand better.
Coyneโs column was not a defence of patriotism. It was another smug lecture aimed at people he does not understand and clearly does not respect.
Ryan called him out, and Coyne had no answer beyond another condescending quip.
Polling for the Carney government, as reported by David Akin at Global, shows that across the country, Canadians support building more pipelines.
Even in Quebec and B.C. it is the majority.
@acoyne Or we could ask the question? (I'm a Federalist 100%)
"Would you in Alberta vote to separate from Canada if the Federal Liberals continue to not let pipelines be built to tidewater and have cap on production? "
Only then you will see a true sentiment of Alberta separation.
@peepeeLEpuke@JadeCole2112@PierrePoilievre This does not include the cost of having troops in Afghanistan.
Maybe provide a better source because the actual spending of Afghanistan and capital cost was higher than Trudeau spending on the Military.
@brianlilley F'n brutal. So his election promises were fake. That first set of projects were all approved by Harper and already underway. Now he is once again screwing over Canada to become less dependent on the USA. So much for elbows up ๐
@guyfelicella@PierrePoilievre From 9 years ago that picture in the red hat. The other is AI. ๐.
Worst economic performance in G7 last 10 years. And most debt per household in G7 Ya, Liberals doing a bang-up job!
Dude, I don't have to agree with you at all. In this case I don't. And I doubt you have seen the video either. We don't know the context of her consenting. She may have said yes, then no after off video. It seems in their group chat they were awfully worried about something.
This unfortunately happens in hockey circles more than you know., These boys took advantage of this girl and especially it being 5-1 is disgusting to me.
Guilty or not, I'm glad they lost their careers over it. For anyone that has a older teenage daughter they most likely feel the same way as I do. Justice or not, Five guys on one teenage girl drunk or not puts her in a major disadvantage mentally and physically. Those boys should not have been invited into the room or actually gone to the room. It went from 1-1 to 5-1 mentally and sexually.
The law will prevail I am sure with reasonable doubt but no matter what their reputation is ruined not because of her but because of what they did by taking advantage of a girl 5-1, consent or not.
It is irrelevant. Saying NO being sober or drunk is the same. Saying yes sober or drunk is the same. Saying MAYBE is NOT consent.
Just because she doesn't say NO doesn't mean they have consent. It seems that's your argument regarding consent.
That is the law that is being tested here.
I am pretty sure her intent was not to go up there with one guy. It is within reason that those boys would know that prior to going up.
For example, drunk or not, those other 4 guys may have thought they had consent because the first guy said so. But she didn't. Never assume right?
See Paris man raping wife for 19 years.
17 year old boys don't know that if you are drunk you can't give consent as you claim. NO means NO at all ages. They didn't seek a YES did they?
It is irrelevant. Saying NO being sober or drunk is the same. Saying yes sober or drunk is the same. Saying MAYBE is NOT consent.
Just because she doesn't say NO doesn't mean they have consent. It seems that's your argument regarding consent.
That is the law that is being tested here.
I am pretty sure her intent was not to go up there with one guy. It is within reason that those boys would know that prior to going up.
For example, drunk or not, those other 4 guys may have thought they had consent because the first guy said so. But she didn't. Never assume right?
See Paris man raping wife for 19 years.
17 year old boys don't know that if you are drunk you can't give consent as you claim. NO means NO at all ages. They didn't seek a YES did they?