Blind side-by-side morality tests reveal that Jack Layton can be so easily fooled, in a way that Elizabeth May can not.
Would Jack Layton accept blacked out documents as proof of his bank balance, or simple in cases where 2.5 million Canadians’ lose $35 billion? Elizabeth did not and called for public inquiry into Harper’s false claims of tax leakage, making Elizabeth May a saint and Jack Layton a criminal, as he participated in a fraud.
Was Jack Layton just being dumb and lazy or was he accepting of Harper’s lies about tax leakage in exchange for the income trust tax carve-out that was extended to the public sector pension funds like OMERs who could own trusts privately (like Teranet) and not pay the tax, yet average Canadians seeking to share in the profits of Ontario’s monopoly land registration system in their RRSPs can not?
What kind of Tax Fairness Plan is that? How does that "level the playing field"?
Which is it Jack Layton? Fraudster or dummy?
Fraud: an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
See YouTube: Why did Jack Layton fall for Harper's tax leakage lie?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Posted by Fillibluster at 7:48 AM