Redford: Buyers Remorse?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So July 29 to August 4th, which includes the 29,30,31,1,2,3,4, is by my count 7...

There's a reason my math was no good in school. Epic failure on my part

[MarchHare]

It's a seven day trip consisting of five days of meetings and two days for travel.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Dion

There's a reason my math was no good in school. Epic failure on my part

Your whole contribution to this thread has been orbiting epic fail.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Your whole contribution to this thread has been orbiting epic fail.

I've admitted some of mistakes. No need to be a condesending a-hole about it

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Dion

I've admitted some of mistakes. No need to be a condesending a-hole about it

I'm not talking about mistakes I'm talking about the whole London travel issue and the faux outrage which has been roundly repudiated and dismissed. Consider it my quest against blind partisanship. You will be smoked out of your holes.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I'm not talking about mistakes I'm talking about the whole London travel issue and the faux outrage which has been roundly repudiated and dismissed. Consider it my quest against blind partisanship. You will be smoked out of your holes.

The trip isn't over and the cost breakdown haven't been submitted or examined. All we have is specualtion. To say there is no possibility of spending irregularities without having seen the numbers is foolish.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am not taking sides, or maybe I am, but as far as I can tell the PC's announced a trip and said that the budget was $84000. I think it is safe to assume that that number came from somewhere. The flight and hotels would have been booked in advance and after that there is incidental activities, food and transportation. The events themselves are not part of this budget as far as I have heard.

Absolutely, the final accounting isn't done until after the trip, but the time to save money is before it is spent, not after. A lot of companies make people estimate their costs before they can get approval for a trip. I know that if I am going to go to a conference somewhere I am supposed to write up a quick account of how much it will cost and what I expect to get out of it. It doesn't have to be perfect but it does have to be approved before I leave, not after I get back.

I would hope that something like this is required within the provincial government and based on the fact that they have a ballpark cost already I think it is safe to assume that they did follow this process. So in the end, one party (the PC's) already has this information and have chosen not to release it until later, the other party (the Wildrose) is trying to determine how the number could possibly be so high. They aren't allowed access to the information so they have to try to guess. They put together the cost of fairly expensive flights and hotels, allowed the maximum for food and incidentals and then tried to fill the rest of the budget with transportation costs. The only way to get the transportation costs high enough to hit the $84000 mark was with the Rolls Royces. They aren't saying that they are using those cars, just that that is what a trip would look like in their mind if they were trying to spend the money that is being spent.

I think the bigger issue here is not that the numbers that the Wildrose made up aren't perfect but that the PC's have the real numbers and would prefer to release them later when the media attention has died down.

Wow you really are trying to justify the WRP fabricating expenditures that aren't being made in a partisan attempt to make Redford look bad.

Just so I' m clear, are you really suggesting that the opposition, or the taxpayers themselves, should pre-approve the budgeted cost of every business trip? Will the WRP provide detailed information of travel expenditures that are funded by the taxpayer PRIOR to incurring them?

That's incredibly dumb. Doesn't the WRP have anything better to do than take ridiculous potshots at the government over an $84,000 expenditure?

There is no way those WRP dummies are fit to govern.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Lol at the poster trying to justify completely fabricated scenarios presented by the WRP.

This may be difficult for you to understand but I'll try to make it simple for you so you can follow along.

Accounting for business trips takes place AFTER the trip has been completed, not before or during. Or do you file expense reports before before entertaining clients or before your business trips?

Maybe your reading comprehension level is below kindergarten so I will reiterate what the entire point was with small, easy to grasp, sentences:

There is a Budget for this trip. A budget set by the PC's. Those PC's are led by Alison Redford. Alison Redford is going on the trip. The budget for the trip is $84,000 dollars. Budget is for certain expenses. Certain expenses not defined.

Now that you're caught up, why not outline how you think the $84,000 is broken up since you are so in tune with business trips?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Maybe your reading comprehension level is below kindergarten so I will reiterate what the entire point was with small, easy to grasp, sentences:

Whoops:

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

A budget set by the PC's.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Your whole contribution to this thread has been orbiting epic fail.

Way to be a complete and utter jackass about it. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean you have to be an ####### about it.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Way to be a complete and utter jackass about it. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean you have to be an ####### about it.

Uhm actually, I don't respect all opinions equally. Infact, I take some opinions with a thick spreading of derision because as demonstrated in this thread, those opinions are stupid.

If it was a well reasoned opinion, although one I disagreed with I would treat it as such. Instead we have a poster saying the Premier should fly freaking coach to London. That opinion does not deserve respect. It actually deserves being called out for what it is, which is what I did.

We're in an era where everyone thinks that they have some valuable insight to an issue when most don't. It's high time that the stupid, angry, crazy, and otherwise damaging people got called out.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's high time that the stupid, angry, crazy, and otherwise damaging people got called out.

Agreed.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Wow you really are trying to justify the WRP fabricating expenditures that aren't being made in a partisan attempt to make Redford look bad.

Just so I' m clear, are you really suggesting that the opposition, or the taxpayers themselves, should pre-approve the budgeted cost of every business trip? Will the WRP provide detailed information of travel expenditures that are funded by the taxpayer PRIOR to incurring them?

That's incredibly dumb. Doesn't the WRP have anything better to do than take ridiculous potshots at the government over an $84,000 expenditure?

There is no way those WRP dummies are fit to govern.

No, I am not saying that the public/opposition should pre-approve anything. Just that we should have access to the information. If it is a grotesque waste of money then the opposition can make a big deal of it and try to prevent it from being spent. When the information is withheld or given out in small bits I don't think the blame should go to those who are using the data but rather on those who held the information back.

As for this incident itself, I really don't care it just seemed like there were 8 of you jumping in and attacking the Wildrose. Their job is to review what the government is doing and point out anything that can be improved. If there was policy on the table to discuss then I am sure the attention would be focused there instead.

To your first point, nothing is being fabricated as you claim. All they have is a cost and they are putting together a sample budget to try to figure out how the costs got as high as they have.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Your whole contribution to this thread has been orbiting epic fail.

Insults others in a political discussion...

...makes himself look like the idiot.

Two can play at your silly internet meme game.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Love the yokel-rage about the cost for a politician and their entourage to travel.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Go back to the hole you came from.

Pro-tip: When you need to use insulting language in an attempt to dismiss the opinions of others in discussion you're losing the argument.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's high time that the stupid, angry, crazy, and otherwise damaging people got called out.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Maybe your reading comprehension level is below kindergarten so I will reiterate what the entire point was with small, easy to grasp, sentences:

There is a Budget for this trip. A budget set by the PC's. Those PC's are led by Alison Redford. Alison Redford is going on the trip. The budget for the trip is $84,000 dollars. Budget is for certain expenses. Certain expenses not defined.

Now that you're caught up, why not outline how you think the $84,000 is broken up since you are so in tune with business trips?

Slava has already done that. But thanks for coming out.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

To your first point, nothing is being fabricated as you claim. All they have is a cost and they are putting together a sample budget to try to figure out how the costs got as high as they have.

Did Redford rent Rolls Royces for the trip? If not then they Wildrose are fabricating costs that aren't being incurred. It's pretty straightforward.

It's clear that the Wildrose is trying to make it appear as though Rolls-Royce's were rented in the hopes that people would be outraged.

[GP_Matt]

Did you even read the article?
The first line is
Here's a breakdown of what Redford's Olympic trip might look like.

Might is the important word in the sentence. They are speculating about what might have to be done to rack up the $84000 tab.

It is clear that you are trying to make it appear as though the Wildrose is lying in the hope that people will be outraged.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Did you even read the article?
The first line is
Here's a breakdown of what Redford's Olympic trip might look like.

Might is the important word in the sentence. They are speculating about what might have to be done to rack up the $84000 tab.

It is clear that you are trying to make it appear as though the Wildrose is lying in the hope that people will be outraged.

But they are and that's the entire purpose of this discussion.

It's not even an article. It's a Wildrose Press Release, which guesses at what might be done via Expedia searches and online searches. This isn't an article in the newspaper with actual fact checking, it's a self proclaimed FACT CHECK (which for the record doesn't even have facts within it) coming from the opposition party, which goes directly to the it's supporters.

So yes, this entire discussion is about the Wildrose trying to get it's supporters outraged.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Did you even read the article?
The first line is
Here's a breakdown of what Redford's Olympic trip might look like.

Might is the important word in the sentence. They are speculating about what might have to be done to rack up the $84000 tab.

It is clear that you are trying to make it appear as though the Wildrose is lying in the hope that people will be outraged.

"Might" is the word that the Wildrose hopes people don't notice when they read the VERY LOADED words Rolls Royce.

If their intention wasn't inflamatory, why is it Rolls Royce's they priced out, not a Town Car or similar.

You're either very naive or think I am.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Uhm actually, I don't respect all opinions equally. Infact, I take some opinions with a thick spreading of derision because as demonstrated in this thread, those opinions are stupid.

If it was a well reasoned opinion, although one I disagreed with I would treat it as such. Instead we have a poster saying the Premier should fly freaking coach to London. That opinion does not deserve respect. It actually deserves being called out for what it is, which is what I did.

We're in an era where everyone thinks that they have some valuable insight to an issue when most don't. It's high time that the stupid, angry, crazy, and otherwise damaging people got called out.

Funny part is I ended up agreeing with pretty much what Slava said and you decided to ignore that. If you weren't sitting so high and mighty on that high horse of yours you might have noticed that. People do make errors in thier line of thinking and some are even willing to admit that they were wrong. I wonder if you would ever do the same.