Yup. Here's my thoughts on those.

1. DGAF bout stampede and pancake flipping

2. DGAF bout stampede and pancake flipping

3. Only mention of replacement in that article is union saying AI cannot replace them. IMO we need more AI tools in public service.

4. The expectations being unrealistic are your allegations. Based on what I've read from you, you're wholly unqualified to make those kind of determinations.

5. Broken Link. I'll assume it's your opinion that the timelines are unrealistic.

6. Canada's steel/auto sectors are highly integrated and interruption is going to have massive ripple effects in the Canadian economy. So yea Carney is meeting with their CEOs. NEXT.

7. Our legislature has been largely ineffective and it's Clear the CPC/PP intend to continue gridlocking our government. Shifting power from the house is hardly the biggest problem with C-5. Further illustrating that you're not writing this article objectively but with a specfic target in mind.

8. An amendment gets voted down and this relates to pancakes HOW? At least this is a legitimate concern about C5. Albeit a widely discussed one.

Honestly that's as far as I got. I have concerns about bills C-2 and C5, but the way you're trying to connect this to Carney personally is a waste of my time as a reader.

You absolutely lost me when you started trying to call out his financial holdings. It's right there in his response... Is Pierre Poilievre on the up and up with his stock options?

If I had written that and submitted it to my English teacher he would have told me to delete 80% and do 3 more drafts.

This whole thing comes off as a Carney hate piece with zero objectivity. You need to appreciate that the people taking the time to read articles are likely going to be turned off by blatantly biased writing.

I personally am only bothering to respond because clearly you put some effort into this, and maybe you do have something valid to say. But you got some work to do first.