The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...65#post4870765

Yup, missed that one.

You and V are still full of crap though. Two posts out of over 300.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yup, missed that one.

You and V are still full of crap though. Two posts out of over 300.

It's more than just two posts. Here's another poster calling her a witch completely unrelated to any posts about a "witch hunt":

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1359

As I said above, I didn't say anything about it until V brought it up because I didn't want to derail this thread* into a conversation of people making excuses for casual sexism (mission failed! ), but it's most definitely present throughout this discussion.

*Edit: and also because I didn't want any comments lamenting the use of sexist terminology to be misconstrued as support for Redford.

[troutman]

Regarding Gendered Insults:

http://morewomeninskepticism.wordpre...dered-insults/

[Resolute 14]

You're reaching on that one, MarchHare. But hey, anything that allows you to feel superior.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Locke

Uh...then dont claim it as meals? A promotional event falls under a different category of deductions.

Your profile says Income Tax Central so you must know this, but I thought meals are meals and all fall under the same rules, no? Same for entertainment such as theatre, hockey games, etc. I didn't think you could circumvent the rules as you're suggesting. For example, you can't take a client to a restaurant, give him a gift card for the restaurant and have him use it to pay for the meal (while claiming the entire cost of the card). Is this incorrect? I know accountants all handle things differently so maybe mine is more strict.

This is getting off topic but I'm interested in your stance on this.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Generally speaking Revenue Canada wants meals to be claimed only if they actually relate to dealings that will result in future business (i.e. more revenue for the government to tax), so things like an appreciation dinner don't (or shouldn't) count because they are more of a thank you for your business rather than something to actually increase business. Now if you can prove such a dinner resulted in more business (i.e. a new contract) then it becomes deductible at the 50% rate.

[V]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm sorry, but you are full of crap.

Searching back to posts from April 20 to today, ONE person referred to Redford as being a "bitch". I'm not seeing any references to "see you next tuesday" and the uses of "witch" are done in context (and criticism of) the complaint from outside this forum that this has turned into a "witch hunt".

In short, you and MarchHare are inventing misogyny and attempting to tar people without reason.

Sorry Res, I'm not full of crap, because it's an honest observation I've made. Now my conclusions may not be accurate, maybe this isn't misogynistic, but I'm not lying when I say the following posts bother me a little bit.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=406
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1348
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1359
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1032
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=683
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1354

[Resolute 14]

In fairness V, most of those go back to before the point I stopped checking, as I was focused primarily on the current discussion (i.e.: since the first CBC reports of the AG's interim report). The current discussion, save for two posters, didn't devolve into what you are claiming. Yet, you chose to basically tar everyone in the thread.

[Jacks]

^^ You must be horrified at the thread where the title calls Anders a twat.

[Dion]

From the report:

• Premier Redford and her office used public resources inappropriately.
• Premier Redford used public assets (aircraft) for personal and partisan purposes.
• The Department of Treasury Board and Finance has not explained to Albertans why it believes the extra cost over alternatives to owning a fleet of aircraft is judged to be worthwhile.
• How could this have happened? The answer is the aura of power around Premier Redford and her office and the perception that the influence of the office should not be questioned.
• We observed a tendency to work around or ignore rules in order to fulfill requests coming from the premier’s office in ways that avoided leaving the premier with personal responsibility for decisions.
• Other areas of government were wary of challenging decisions made in the premier’s office.
• All of the failings might have been prevented or detected earlier with oversight designed to provide substantive challenge.
• No public servant, not even a premier, should be excused from vigilant oversight of their compliance with policies and processes designed both to protect the public interest and themselves from bad judgment.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/08/07...edfords-travel

[Resolute 14]

Anyway, back on topic, the AG's comments about "aura of power" that Redford should not be questioned and the pointed statement that the Treasury Board and Finance departments (which will fall to the ministers responsible) have some explaining to do are going to be a little inconvenient for Hancock, the leadership hopefuls and their contention that Redford was an isolated case rather than a sign of deep-rooted entitlement issues within the party.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yet, you chose to basically tar everyone in the thread.

I didn't get the impression at all that he was tarring everyone. I personally don't believe the majority of people posting in this thread are sexist and/or misogynistic, but there absolutely is a minority who are using particular insults that they would not be using if it had been a male politician who was guilty of the same level of corruption.

[GP_Matt]

Using the plane for fundraising events is a huge red flag. That is a huge breach of trust and no different than giving government money directly to the party.
Hancock has said the party will pay back that money, but I hope it isn't dropped at that.

[V]

I should have said "some people" and not just "people". That would have more effectively conveyed my point.

Moving on.

The WR are screwed. There isn't enough in that AG report to hurt the PCs as a party. It will be uncomfortable for a bit, but Prentice will come in and start fresh with a "whole new party". Book it.

Too bad, I'd like to see a change in pretty much any direction.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Meals are a joke, I've always thought that. You're going to have to eat anyway, who cares if it's business. Never understood that one. Unless it's some sort of official function. Two people having dinner and they spend 5 mins talking about business and now it's a free meal. Yeah, that seems totally legit. I don't agree with lawyers fees being paid for either by the government either.

I get the sense that you don't work in a position where client relationships matter. If I take a client out for dinner, whether or not we talk for more than 5 mins about business, it's taking time away from my friends/family. Instead, I'm spending time with a person I barely know, or maybe sorta know, or hell that I don't even like. And I'm using that time to drum up business for my company, and not for my own personal bottom line.

Guess what, if I'm going to be doing this, I'd better be at least compensated with a damn meal.

Also re: misogyny. Do I get points for calling Stelmach a dumbass?

Edit: Had to look up what See You Next Tuesday meant. Conclusion: That's way too much work to throw such a stupid insult!

Edit 2: And can we really call a dude a witch as an insult? Witches are female. I suppose we can use Warlocks as the male equivalent?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by V

The WR are screwed. There isn't enough in that AG report to hurt the PCs as a party. It will be uncomfortable for a bit, but Prentice will come in and start fresh with a "whole new party". Book it.

One thing I learned from this is that voters are smarter than people give them credit for. They saw through Redford's facade in just one $45K trip. I seriously doubt they'll think of the PC as a whole new party just because Prentice is at helm.

And a lot of the PC voters are now regretting not voting for WR last time for whatever reasons.

[Resolute 14]

It's too early to say that either side is screwed. Still a lot of time until the next election.

Like V, I expect Prentice will come in with a "whole new party" theme. Problem is, that is the very same theme Redford went with, and you can be certain that Wildrose, Liberals, NDP and the leftovers will all attempt to tie those together. It will be interesting to see how effective the Tories are at disassociating themselves from the spectre of Redford.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by darklord700

And a lot of the PC voters are now regretting not voting for WR last time for whatever reasons.

Source?

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by V

I should have said "some people" and not just "people". That would have more effectively conveyed my point.

Yeah. You were being kind of a warlock.

[saillias]

I don't really want to vote for any party Alberta has right now. Spoil the ballot in protest, I guess.