Hugo

It is the intention. I believe I have already spoken about the difference between moral intent and moral outcome, the whole idea of the capitalist system is to harness the inescapable evil side of human nature - greed, covetousness, etc. - to produce good. Read the works of any great democratic capitalist thinker, such as Adam Smith or Benjamin Franklin, and you will see that this was their intention from the start. The difference is that socialism wishes to harness the good side of human nature to produce good. The problem is that humans are born into sin and the vast majority will never truly escape that, which is why socialism always fails. As to encouraging people to be greedy, well, that just depends on what you mean by "greedy", doesn't it? Is it greedy to want to work harder and earn more to give your children a better life? That's the reason most people work, after all. I believe there are very few people out there who are working purely from complete selfishness. Most combine their personal greed and ambition with a desire for prosperity for their families, a desire to see their co-operative succeed, or even a belief that the job they are doing is truly for the social good. Regardless, it does not matter. You can rely on people to be "greedy" as you put it, to want to better themselves and their situation. Democratic capitalism simply harnesses that drive for the greater good, producing more freedom and prosperity for individuals and for society as a whole.

Oh, you think so? You didn't bother to check up on this before you posted, did you? US poverty level in 1990 and 1999: 13.5% & 11.8% (decrease). In Canada: 15.3% & 16.2% (increase). Denmark does not officially measure poverty, and neither does Norway (to the disgust of charities in both countries), but in the latter country it was unofficially measured at 26% in 2002. In Denmark it was measured at 7.2% but this was computed as a very simple measure of people earning less than 50% of the median income for the entire period 1987-1997, and as such is invalid for comparative purposes. To illustrate that, using the same definition of "poverty" Slovakia measures at 2.1% and the Czech Republic at 2.3%, while the US measures at 16.9% and Australia at 14.3%. Needless to say, that statistic is pretty much useless. Not to mention that because the three countries you list have economic problems due to their high tax/high spend policies, they are facing serious sustainability issues. For instance, most Canadian provincial premiers don't believe that current Canadian healthcare levels can be maintained for much longer. Suffice it to say that not only are there more poor people in the three countries you mention, that number is likely to grow greater. Well, as I've just shown you, capitalism is the best system for getting people out of poverty. Socialism just guarantees equal poverty for all, and not a chance at escaping it. The PRC, North Korea, or Cuba. You can even take mixed economies such as the nations you mentioned, if you like, but bear in mind that the free markets of those countries will raise their standards above those of the truly socialist states. Any Eastern European nation, really. Do you not think that the uprisings in Czechoslovakia and Hungary were a sign that all was not well in the socialist paradise? How about the fact that all the illegal human traffic over the Berlin Wall was all going West? What about the Solidarity movement? It does not matter who officially overthrew government, the fact is that that was merely the final explosion of a popular timebomb set ticking by the injustices of socialism.

There are far fewer poor in capitalist nations than in other systems, and their standard of living and wealth are far higher. The key difference is that a poor person in the USA is free to improve their lot and there are countless "rags to riches" stories to prove it. On the other hand, a poor person (i.e. pretty much everybody) in a "socialist paradise" has no freedom and therefore cannot hope for anything better. This is why socialism produces so much disenchantment and apathy. People do not like being given a lousy standard of living and then being told there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, so they can just live with it and be good proletarians. That's why they get upset and have a tendency to overthrow and destroy socialist regimes, whereas capitalist ones remain politically stable for centuries.

This, again, is incorrect. Capitalism depends upon mutual help and support, it depends on family and upon co-operation. Concepts such as these are crucial aspects of capitalism, and as I said, capitalism produces more charity, more communal good and more co-operation than socialism. Do you identify "capitalists" more as sole traders or large corporations? Actually, they are not, they coincide. "Individual gain" as defined by Adam Smith does not mean working purely from selfish motivations. There are very, very few people in a capitalist society motivated purely by selfishness. Most people are working for a variety of reasons, including to better the co-operative they work in, because they believe in their work, and most often and most importantly, to support their family. Therefore, selfishness doesn't even enter into the heads of capitalists most of the time. Are you unable or just unwilling to answer any of my other points?

"Consenting adults" is meaningless when the meaning of "adult" keeps changing. First it was 21, then 18, now it's 14, unless you're gay, in which case it's 18, except in Ontario and Quebec, where it's 14 again. What your argument boiled down to was that people shouldn't be "discriminated against" because of sexual orientation. I showed you that it's nonsense. You implied agreement in your reply, because you felt the need to confirm that you weren't arguing in favour of pedophiliac relationships and had to qualify your earlier statement to reflect that, in the process disproving that earlier statement. Do you want to change tack now? Oh wait, my mistake: you already did. Smart move.

Oh, right. So you're in favour of 40-year-olds and 8-year-olds marrying as well, I suppose. After all, they can't control their sexual orientation, and why should we deny them their rights because of it? Oh, and let's not forget Mormons and Muslims with multiple wives. Hey, that's actually pretty discriminatory. We should let any guy with the stamina to get several women at once marry them all. But where to set the limit? How about several thousand? Harems are back in! You can have wives you've never even met! What about the ultra-narcissistic who are in love with themselves? Why be so narrow-minded as to require marriage to be between two people? Why can't a man marry himself? He loves himself dearly, of course, and can have a sexual relationship with himself (or so I've heard on this board). He can't have kids or anything, but then, neither can two men, so never mind about that.

This is incorrect. Throughout their texts, Marx and Engels use the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably. I assume, based on your previous posts in this thread, that it's too much to ask how the last two might support your argument, or to ask how the first document has relevance to it. Another error in basic definitions. Socialism is a political dictatorship of the proletariat with the economic aim of proletarian ownership of the means of production. There should be little to no taxation because the workers own the means of production themselves and do not require redistribution of wealth, in fact, the state is supposed to wither away altogether in time. I shall add "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto" to the list of texts I should like you to familiarise yourself with before we go any further. This combined with your earlier blunder on the confusion of socialism and communism indicates to me that you have read neither. I suppose the thousands of employees of corporations such as GM, Microsoft or Exxon are all working for themselves, are they? Or is it that they are all working towards a common goal from which they will all benefit, whether they realise it or not? I suppose every MP and every party member in this country is also working for himself and not for a common goal, either? What about church-goers? How about those who volunteer for charitable organisations? What about programmers who write free software? "Free enterprise" is exactly that: free. It means you are free to do what you will and that includes selfless acts and co-operation. Socialism gives no freedom and therefore strangles selflessness, co-operation and free associations. Something that capitalist thinkers understand and socialists do not is that there is a difference between moral motivation and moral outcome. Capitalism harnesses immoral motivations to produce a moral outcome, whereas socialism replaces that with moral motivations which lead to immoral outcomes. The road to the socialist hell that many peoples have been subjected to is paved with admirable intentions.

You have not cited an example because you cannot, since this point is completely false. Free trade depends upon law and trust (i.e. ethics). Of course, you can find crime in places like the USA or Great Britain, but really, is it anything compared to crimes perpetuated in the USSR or the PRC? Of course not, and in those nations the irony is that the worst crimes were perpetuated by the state that was supposed to free and protect the citizenry from the "evils" of capitalism. I'm sure you are about to rant about the "crimes against humanity" waged by the USA, but until you can show me the mass graves of twenty million American citizens murdered by their government for political dissidence you are, to paraphrase the bard, telling a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing. Statements such as "capitalism was borne on... the lack of [just laws]" are absolutely absurd. Do you think the infant capitalist nations of Great Britain and the USA did not have just laws? Do you think that other nations, at that time, had far better and more just laws? Perhaps Tsarist Russia? Maybe Imperial China? Possibly the Ottoman Empire? You are talking complete balderdash. I advise you to visit an online encyclopedia and check up on the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. Now, when you have an argument based on either facts or logic, we'll talk. But it seems to me that your views are largely based upon knee-jerk anti-bourgeois sentiment so beloved of the chattering classes, a penchant for certain theories no matter how often empirical observation proves those theories ill-conceived, and a lack of knowledge of history, to whit, a keen eye for the warts of democratic capitalism but seemingly total ignorance of the universal and abject failure and inhuman crimes of socialism.

This cannot be true. Without laws concerning basic human rights, there can be no other laws, including property law, so your statement is self-contradictory. Capitalism cannot function without not just property laws, but laws on human rights, criminal activity of all kinds, limits on the power of church, state and economic interests, and so forth. This is why democratic capitalist nations have large legal establishments and vast codified laws. Certainly. But you forget two things. Firstly, people are self-aware individuals, not ants, so you will only ever get a certain degree of co-operation out of them. On some level they will always compete. Even ant or bee colonies will compete with each other for limited resources. Secondly, it's another irony that capitalism produces more co-operation and more communal spirit than socialism. Capitalist societies produce a massive amount of free associations: corporations, labour unions, political parties, lobby and activist groups, social clubs, churches, charities etc. Socialist societies never produce a large number of associations and co-operatives because socialism does not encourage co-operation, it encourages laziness, and because where freedom is limited free association will not exist. Are you familiar with the story of Viktor Belenko? Belenko was a Soviet MiG-25 pilot who, in 1976, flew his aircraft to Japan and defected to the United States. He and his aircraft were brought home on an aircraft carrier and on that carrier he was amazed at how American servicemen co-operated as teams and showed initiative in the course of their work. In his long experience as a Soviet officer, Soviet soldiers generally did not co-operate and did not work autonomously but just hung around until given specific orders by an officer. This experience was repeated by other Soviet defectors. Socialist systems produce an unbelievable apathy in all walks of life. Socialist people neither co-operate nor compete, they just do nothing unless coerced. Socialist systems remove all incentive for co-operation. Where the state controls all politics, there is no point to political parties or lobby groups. Where all industry is state-owned there is no point in corporations or labour unions. Where religion and social activity are closely regulated by the state there is no point in churches or social clubs. There are no freely associated groups, all co-operatives are coercive and enforced by the state. You have not understood. The "prize" is not limited, it can grow, and it can be made "artifically" as well as appearing "naturally". This is why Marx was dead wrong when he predicted that the "contradictions" of capitalism would cause it to tear itself apart. He, like you, did not understand capitalism and economics very well.

Hey, Black Dog. Good to see you again. Interesting how you regard this, because the whole dealings with the aboriginals were strong, good examples of something definitely other than capitalism. Let me illustrate. Capitalism depends upon free trade. Socialists believe that all trade is conducted for both parties to secure a slice of a pie of limited size and thus, in any trade, one party 'wins' and the other 'loses'. They are wrong. Trade itself makes the pie grow larger, therefore, it is perfectly possible for both parties in a trade agreement to benefit from that agreement and for there to be two 'winners'. This is one of the reasons why capitalists believe that free trade is the best way to secure more wealth and well-being for all people, and why nations engaging in free trade have achieved greater wealth and higher standards of living than those who do not. Now, if you put your Colt Peacemaker to Sitting Bull's head and demand that he hand over his tribal lands in exchange for some mouldering old blankets or whatever you have lying around, that isn't free trade. It's robbery. If a burglar broke into your house and stole your money and electrical goods, I'm sure you wouldn't think you had been the victim of a capitalist transaction. No, you would have been a victim of a crime, and so were the aboriginals in most cases. Most aboriginals also held the belief that land could not be owned but merely occupied. Tribal chiefs who sold their land or gave it away were in violation of their own laws and ethics, and were also trading with what was not theirs to trade. As I had said before, capitalism depends upon underpinnings of ethics and law, and where ethics and law fail you will not and cannot have capitalism. In the aboriginal dealings, on both sides ethics and law were not applied, and so those dealings were not capitalist.

Thelonius, I believe KK has put things in a way you find difficult to understand because the word "selfish" is ethically loaded. I shall attempt to explain better. First, democratic capitalism believes in empowering the individual and enabling them to do whatever they wish, with very few limits. For instance, you don't have to work if you don't want to (and you may be asked to bear the consequences of that decision i.e. poverty), but if you do, the gigantic world of work and study is open to you. Other forms of government and economy don't empower the individual. What you do is not up to you, it's up to the state. In a socialist society, Jesus, Gandhi, or Buddha would never have done anything. They could either take their place on the state tractor factory production line or whatever, or be imprisoned or shot for "parasitic" behaviour since none of them worked. The same goes for inventors such as Edison, Bell, the Wright brothers, and so forth, all of whom have made massive contributions to the standard of living you now enjoy. Capitalism recognises that individuals very often produce the great leaps in science, engineering, philosophy and spiritualism that help society progress. To socialism, however, "individual" is a dirty word, and individualism is repressed. Secondly, as religion teaches us, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Socialism refuses to accept this. It believes that a few people can divine what is "best" for humanity, when "best" is extremely subjective, and the course to it is impossible to see in a world of infinite complexity such as the one we live in. This is why socialism always fails, because imposing the dreams of one man or a few on a whole society is wrong. Democratic capitalism recognises this and empowers individuals to move society in the popular direction by an organic and almost imperceptible movement. This is why, all in all, democratic capitalist societies such as Britain and the USA continue to prosper without any major problems while socialist countries suffer miserably. Even the American Civil War claimed about 1% of the lives that were lost since 1917 in the USSR and since 1950 in the PRC due to government-induced famine and political murder. Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi or whatever did not leave "self" behind. They acted in ways that made sense to them and their core beliefs. This is what we are getting at. All three of those figures did what they, as an individual, wanted to. Capitalism allows individual acts like that. Socialism does not.

That is the essence of any ownership. Capitalism and the free exchange and trade that capitalism depends upon has been taken away from the aboriginals because a) most of their lands were just taken and they do not have right of alienation of the lands they have left. Now they are in a pretty sorry state. If they had understood capitalism or been able to exercise it they might be a lot better off. No, it isn't nonsense. You can lie to sell a product, but that'll only work once. Look at adverts. There are no lies, and anything that's a half-truth has small print to tell you so. Advertisers have been caught out by lawsuits too many times to falsify a product. About the worst they do these days is to sell a product based on image or lifestyle, and you have to have a very low opinion of people if you think they'll genuinely buy something because it'll make them Tony Hawk or whatever. Endorsement or indication that a certain product might suit a certain lifestyle isn't a lie. As I already said, "self-interest" does not necessarily lie in money or even what's beneficial to oneself. Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and Mother Theresa all doubtless got personal satisfaction from what they did and felt that they were living worthy lives, and so, in that respect, they were acting at least partly from self-interest. Do you understand now?

It is lazy and unreasonable. I have given a source for that exact fact several times, and so has Neal Ford, and you have acknowledged that in the past. It's my responsibility to provide a source once. After that, it's your responsibility to remember.

Capitalism also depends on those two things. Without law, there is no point in capital because another can take it by force. Without ethics, there is no point in the free market because incessant lies and deceit will disenchant consumers and dry up supplies, and the whole system comes crashing down. Democratic capitalism is a balance, depending upon each of the three components I mentioned, and if any one gets to be too strong or too weak the whole suffers. Furthermore, "purest capitalism" is an oxymoron, because as I said, capitalism deals in reality and compromise, not dreams and absolutes. You cannot have pure capitalism because capitalism depends upon impurity to function.

No, you can't. Not another time. I've given it countless times before and I'm tired of copy-and-pasting it for lazy people. Do a search on this forum. It takes all of ten seconds. Perhaps if you did some legwork on your own you might find the truth of a few matters.

Actually, we never were, even then. Capitalism can only succeed as part of a pluralist system that involves capitalism, political liberty and a moral (religious) society, which was the case in 18th-century Britain and America. I think we are seeing a lot of problems lately because the third is being eroded, but that's my opinion. The "socialist" elements that you believe you see are actually manifestations of the second and third elements of the tripartite system of democratic capitalism at work. Capitalism has to be tempered by just law and sound ethics, and while those two can strangle capitalism if taken too far, as capitalism can strangle those two, it's a fact that capitalism cannot actually exist without law and ethics. Capitalist democracy does not deal in absolutes and theories as socialism does, it deals with realities, which is why it should not and cannot allow extremes of anything to survive long both for its own good and for the good of the people.

Cameron, If KK will forgive me, I think the political aspect lies in the fact that this sort of attitude seems to be an increasing part of Canadian and, to a lesser extent, American society. Examples: 1) Canadian government runs up massive debts, simply assuming that future generations will pay it off "somehow". 2) Provinces hit with Mad Cow and SARS appeal to the feds to cover all of their losses, not expecting that they might have to deal with their own problems, and it not occurring to them that all the money the feds give them is going to come from them anyway - with a little skimmed off for federal employees and new private jets, of course. 3) Bombardier goes whining to the government that it needs more money or it'll have to start making jets overseas (why don't you take measures to make yourself more efficient and develop improved designs that will sell better - or something). 4) Air Canada suffers big losses and also goes whining to the government that it needs more money to help it out (once again, instead of taking measures to cut costs and become a more efficient and lean operation, just expect the taxpayer to cover your mistakes). 5) The poor sap that Jean Chretien sold his cruddy hotel to goes back whining to Chretien that he needs more money, and Chretien proceeds to lean on investment bank managers, hold up court cases for cash contributions from the defendants, etc (allegedly). 6) Despite the fact that homosexuals are 1000 times more likely to get AIDS (CDC Atlanta), they refuse on the whole to stop their extremely promiscuous behaviour and disdain for safe sex (fact: almost 1/3 of American gay men have more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners, compared to an average of 8 for the country as a whole). Instead, they demand ever-increasing sums of money to search for a cure, when the "cure" is quite simple: use protection, and stop sleeping with so many people. 7) The "welfare trap", namely, once you are on welfare it is actually pretty difficult to get back into work, home ownership and so on again. I know people on welfare and many of them are deterred from working again because they would lose their house (welfare extracts "reparations" once you start working again), or just be worse off financially. And so on. This is what an increasingly left-leaning government and society gives you: diminishing personal responsibility and accountability, because a dominating and powerful state advertises that it will catch you if you fall, therefore no real need to try too hard at balancing on your own, eh?

Lonius, Socialism is admirable in theory but has never, ever worked in practice. This is because it is an impossible theory. It relies upon every man being of saintly virtue and willing to work extra-hard for his fellow man instead of himself. Christianity (and most other religions) teach us man is not like that. He is born into sin and remains a sinner, and only Christ was truly without sin. Capitalism recognises that man is a sinner, but harnesses that sin into a system that ends up producing more for the common man than socialism ever has or ever will. Look at the progress of Russia and America since the 18th Century, America epitomising democratic capitalism and Russia first autocratic mercantilism and then autocratic communism. In which country is the average man better off? Of course, it is America, and there was no point in the centuries in between when this was not the case (and don't mention the Depression, because 30m Soviet citizens had starved to death because of Communist stupidities by the time the Depression hit). Socialism is a broken system that is in denial of reality. That is why it never works. Capitalism recognises the flaws in man and attempts to turn them to the greatest good possible. Christianity and capitalism are perfectly suited. And we haven't even got around to mentioning free will as it occurs in Christianity and as it is mirrored in capitalist economic liberty yet. Christianity emphasises that charity and goodwill must come from within. It isn't Christian for a Communist state to force charitable actions from those who wouldn't otherwise give them. Capitalism shows their true colours. Furthermore, democratic capitalism allows society and the economy to evolve according to the will of the common men, whereas socialism and indeed, all other forms of government and economy, impose the will of a few "wise" men on the masses. As Christianity teaches us, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, which is why all socialist states that begin with high ideals end up as cesspits of misery and despair, whereas democratic capitalist states such as the USA and Great Britain have remained bastions of liberty and freedom throughout the ages.

Greed and envy are different. They are both deadly sins, however. The difference is that capitalism is not driven by greed but by self-interest, and that self-interest does not have to be in money or even in direct benefit to oneself. Last year, the Gates Foundation gave $0.8bn to charitable causes. You are living proof that capitalism does not inevitably produce greedy people. It is Christian to want to help your fellow man. Capitalism is the system that has done much, much more than any other to improve the standard of living of men and to give them liberties and freedoms. Therefore, it is Christian to be capitalist.

Well, the cry of Marxists is that it's "not fair" that some are rich while most are poor. That's a cry of envy. It's basically a case of seeing something that another person has and wanting it. If you are not envious - if you answer that you don't care how rich others are - Marxism has nothing left to entice you with. Certainly this is true. The Communist Party of Canada is never likely to win a single seat, and the Conservatives are really not all that right-wing - most are in favour of state healthcare and some state-run industries, for instance. But my point was simply to illustrate that Christianity and democratic-capitalism are perfectly suited to one another, and that a capitalist can be a good Christian - a better Christian, in fact, than a communist.

Left-wing politics are very anti-Christian. Communism and socialist ideas revolve around envy and view envy as the primary motivation of human beings. Marxism only functions if you actually feel that a gap between rich and poor is injust. Now, it says three times (in various ways) in the 10 Commandments that you shall not covet what others have nor seek to obtain it for yourself. So, socialism is based upon one of the seven Deadly Sins: envy. But isn't capitalism based upon greed? No, it isn't. It's based on self-interest, but nobody said that that self-interest had to be about money and wealth. Hardner, Fleabag and others, your very existence proves the hard-heartedness of capitalism wrong. You all live in a capitalist society, so according to leftist theories of capitalism you should all be thinking of Number One right now and trying to screw the other guy to get what you want - but you aren't! Instead, you are decrying that system, and your self-interest is not in wealth but in a genuine concern for your fellow man and the improvement of his condition. Admittedly, not everybody thinks that way. Christianity teaches us that we are all sinners, without exception, and capitalism is a system designed to acknowledge the omnipresence of sin in humanity while providing means for it to be overcome. Capitalism is a system by which sin, which cannot be overcome in totality, can be harnessed to produce the greatest overall good. Socialism, however, requires each man to be a saint in order to work, which is why it always fails.

Baron, I understand your viewpoint and completely agree. Despite being a right-winger, I would rather have a trustworthy NDP government in power than a corrupt and pork-barrelling Liberal party. At least then I would know that my tax dollars were going somewhere other than Liberal party coffers or, worse yet, into private pockets. I think this is disgusting, however, I expect that absolutely nothing will come of it. Chretien and his government were smeared over and over again with scandal after allegation after corruption. When the private jet purchases were initially made, for instance, the media raised a fuss and nobody cared. The Auberge Grand-Mere, the Fu brothers, Native Affairs, Chretien's private clinics, refusal to break off skiing to attend the funeral of another world leader, the TotalFinaElf/Saddam connection etc. have been going on seemingly forever, but nobody cares. In Britain, where I am from, countless sex scandals in the Conservative Party definitely helped to topple them and helped Tony Blair's Labour Party to win a massive landslide back in 1997. However, in Canada, multiple corruption scandals (which I regard as being far worse than sex scandals) have failed to have any impact on the government. Chretien lies over repealing GST, leans on bank managers for his friends, buys himself jets at taxpayer expense, takes bribes to influence a court, lies about Gulf II (said he didn't support it because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN - rubbish, he didn't support Gulf I either and it was sanctioned by the UN) and he gets re-elected, no problem, with a majority government. I shall finish by quoting FastNed and Craig Read, of this forum: "Sheep will be fleeced" and "Canada has exactly the kind of government it deserves." Oh, and just so Chretien doesn't sue me (he can afford lawyers of far greater calibre than I), let me just add "allegedly" to all that I've said.

I personally feel that there isn't much to differentiate Harper and Clement in terms of ideals and policies. Both support tax cuts, senate reform, military rebuilding, repair of relations with the US, traditional definition of marriage and so forth. I feel that either would be a good choice as leader. I'll cast my vote for Harper, because I do not want Stronach to win (there's no need for another Liberal Party, thank you very much) and I feel that of the two, Harper is more likely to be victorious. It would be a tragedy if Stronach was able to split the votes of her opponents and so clinch a victory. However, if Clement wins, I won't be shopping for a new party and I will have no reservations about voting for a Conservative Party led by him. I think that both Harper and Clement supporters that vow to withdraw their support from a party led by the other man are just being bloody-minded. Both men have things to recommend them - Harper has experience at the federal level, while Clement can speak for both PC and CA members - but I don't think that either is so much better or different from the other that they could be written off as a leader.

In an SES/Sun Media poll, Harper placed at 41%, with Clement and Stronach following at 26% and 20% respectively. This was a survey of 1000 Canadians which asked who they would vote for if they could vote in the Conservative leadership race, and did not specify any names but identified candidates with a brief bio. When they were asked who they would prefer to become leader by name, Harper still led but with only 27%, while Stronach overtook Clement at 20% and 13% respectively. The poll is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20, and was conducted January 26-29. Full story here. I would expect this to be more unbiased than a poll conducted by a company who has Stronach's campaign manager for senior partner, especially as Sun Media seems to have often favoured Stronach in their editorial pieces.

What does that have to do with this debate?