The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Slava

So if I take you to a restaurant and buy you dinner for business talks, I should just eat that cost out of pocket?

No, the Premier of Alberta should invite Vice President Biden over to her house and discuss the Keystone pipeline over a piping hot bowl of homemade Hamburger Helper.

[darklord700]

Looks like the best possible legal outcome, if there ever is one, is monetary restitution from Redford to the province.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Slava

So if I take you to a restaurant and buy you dinner for business talks, I should just eat that cost out of pocket?

No some other, much larger group of people should obviously.

[V]

Am I the only one that has a real issue with the terminology people on here are using to describe Redford? How often have the terms witch, bitch, See You Next Tuesday, etc. been used? And then you're going to tell me that she's treated the same way she would be if she was a man?

Yeah, if it was a guy you would call it a witch-hunt, but you wouldn't call him a witch, or the male equivalent, whatever that is. But with this woman anything goes, I guess.

No, there's plenty of misogyny taking place here.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Slava

So if I take you to a restaurant and buy you dinner for business talks, I should just eat that cost out of pocket?

Actually, you do now, at least partially. Your restaurant meals are only half deductible, which is also unfair in my opinion.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Makarov

No, the Premier of Alberta should invite Vice President Biden over to her house and discuss the Keystone pipeline over a piping hot bowl of homemade Hamburger Helper.

I hope that's the generic brand though. And it damn well better be Alberta beef!

[MoneyGuy]

It appears I may be in the minority here but I'm not sure I want the see criminal charges. I'm not sure the airplane thing should be a criminal offense, and it's a black mark on our province. I'd prefer if she'd make full retribution, then case closed. Trust me, she's paying big time now for her (huge) transgressions.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by V

Am I the only one that has a real issue with the terminology people on here are using to describe Redford? How often have the terms witch, bitch, See You Next Tuesday, etc. been used? And then you're going to tell me that she's treated the same way she would be if she was a man?

Yeah, if it was a guy you would call it a witch-hunt, but you wouldn't call him a witch, or the male equivalent, whatever that is. But with this woman anything goes, I guess.

No, there's plenty of misogyny taking place here.

You're absolutely right. I noticed it too, but I didn't say anything because I didn't want the conversation to derail into a huge tangent about sexism and misogyny and people attempting to justify how they're totally not being sexist and it's just this woman that they'd use those terms to describe.

It's no different than when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and many posters here called her a "whore" and a "power-hungry slut" and similar, and then, after being called on it, claimed that they would have used the exact same language if it had been a male MP. Right.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

There's 'so many issues' in my post? I notice you listed three things. I'll address them.

1) Yeah I'm in BC, should've clarified that. Our MLAs get ridiculous pensions, as do the feds. I'm more speaking about politics in general, I am relatively ignorant of Alberta's political scene in particular, though this Redford mess piqued my interest I have to say. Good on Alberta for getting rid of them if true, pensions for politicians is a travesty.

2) The government isn't a private company and shouldn't be treated as such. Funny thing about expensing meals is people abuse the hell out of that privilege, I'm sure politicians are no different. If a private company wants to pay for employee's meals with clients, fine I don't care at all, none of my business. Personally I just don't agree with politicians doing it unless it's a public event already paid for anyway. Doesn't benefit society at large, just rich people who want stuff for free.

3) I guess you don't consider $150k extremely well compensated. Good for you but it is, given the amount of work these people actually do. When a number ($150k) is only earned by 2-3% of a country's population, I'd say it's a lot of money.The average gross income in this country is what? 50-60k? Too lazy to look it up but that's probably close. Tripling that for a politician is outrageous. These people are supposed to represent us, not use our taxes to fund their lavish lifestyle. You may earn a lot of money judging by your post but I'd suggest it has skewed your view on that real economic situation faced by most Canadians is, therefore your view on what is 'well compensated' probably has no basis in reality (for 95% of the country anyway).

It isnt. Especially not if thats a family income.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why do you think that private sector boards of directors choose to pay high salaries to their top executives?

Why do you think those same boards of directors are not concerned that they are screwed if their CEO is only working "for the money"?

For the record, I'm not advocating that the Premier should earn $5,000,000/year like many Canadian CEOs do (although I do think that, optics and petty populist politics aside, one could make a reasonable argument for that.) However, I don't think that Alberta's Premier is paid very well. The Premier earns significantly less than a Provincial Court judge, for instance. That's ludicrous.

Because they're idiots.

Price defines quality and quality defines price? Its an illusion.

Originally Posted by Slava

So if I take you to a restaurant and buy you dinner for business talks, I should just eat that cost out of pocket?

No, I deduct that for you!

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Because the only way to have a business meeting is at a restaurant, amirite? And you have to eat just then too, can't eat before and discuss things over a couple of drinks that you pay for yourself. There is just no other way to provide sustenance for your body AND talk business unless it's during a $200 meal that you didn't pay for.

Woooo. I dont know what line of work you're in but that just wouldnt fly. I hate to sound like a dinosaur, but there are ways that things are done in business and if you think that deviating from the norm doesnt cost money then you're being mis-informed.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Actually, you do now, at least partially. Your restaurant meals are only half deductible, which is also unfair in my opinion.

No it isnt, the regulations on business meals are fairly lenient as it is, I dont think much change is needed.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Locke

No it isnt, the regulations on business meals are fairly lenient as it is, I dont think much change is needed.

So, Slava and his wife take 10 great clients and their spouses to dinner as an appreciation event. Total cost is $2,500, half of which is tax deductible. He's effectively paying a large amount out of his pocket that, in my opinion, should be a business expense. Sorry, I don't think that's fair. If you think there are inequities in other areas of business deductibility, I'd agree, but I don't think this one accurately represents the business world.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

So, Slava and his wife take 10 great clients and their spouses to dinner as an appreciation event. Total cost is $2,500, half of which is tax deductible. He's effectively paying a large amount out of his pocket that, in my opinion, should be a business expense. Sorry, I don't think that's fair. If you think there are inequities in other areas of business deductibility, I'd agree, but I don't think this one accurately represents the business world.

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

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Sure are a lot of people fighting straw men in this thread right now.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You're absolutely right. I noticed it too, but I didn't say anything because I didn't want the conversation to derail into a huge tangent about sexism and misogyny and people attempting to justify how they're totally not being sexist and it's just this woman that they'd use those terms to describe.

It's no different than when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and many posters here called her a "whore" and a "power-hungry slut" and similar, and then, after being called on it, claimed that they would have used the exact same language if it had been a male MP. Right.

I'm not looking for a mega derail but what exactly is "the same language"? Is there even really equivalent language for men? I view whore as kind of universal but outside of that what even is equivalent language? Dickbag?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Sure are a lot of people fighting straw men in this thread right now.

Please clarify for me.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

So, Slava and his wife take 10 great clients and their spouses to dinner as an appreciation event. Total cost is $2,500, half of which is tax deductible. He's effectively paying a large amount out of his pocket that, in my opinion, should be a business expense. Sorry, I don't think that's fair. If you think there are inequities in other areas of business deductibility, I'd agree, but I don't think this one accurately represents the business world.

Thank god I would tip $2500 on that dinner!

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'd prefer if she'd make full retribution, then case closed. Trust me, she's paying big time now for her (huge) transgressions.

I agree with you and I don't see jail time in the cards. However if only we can see her being led to the courthouse to face her transgression charges in public and subsequently pay back the money to the people she stole from, that would be golden.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by V

Am I the only one that has a real issue with the terminology people on here are using to describe Redford? How often have the terms witch, bitch, See You Next Tuesday, etc. been used? And then you're going to tell me that she's treated the same way she would be if she was a man?

Yeah, if it was a guy you would call it a witch-hunt, but you wouldn't call him a witch, or the male equivalent, whatever that is. But with this woman anything goes, I guess.

No, there's plenty of misogyny taking place here.

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.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm not looking for a mega derail but what exactly is "the same language"? Is there even really equivalent language for men? I view whore as kind of universal but outside of that what even is equivalent language? Dickbag?

A-hole for men bitch for women? I don't think I've ever heard a woman referred to as an a-hole.

[MarchHare]

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" .

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

[ranchlandsselling]

I'm not going to weigh into wether or not the accusations are fair or not - but surely there's some pretty critical crap posted in the Rob Anders thread that would support people being harsh towards a man?