Comment: just voted up your comment; still question the expense

(See in situ)


just voted up your comment; still question the expense

Maybe we can co-create a better way to vet the sense from the nonsense and the legitimate questions from the bashing?

I made a comment on the other thread about how, in my experience (which is considerable), 80% of "administration" costs are GENERALLY unnecessary. I qualified with "generally" some business models authentically require a lot of up-front hard costs. Still, I'll stand by my comment; it's based on my decades in various schools of hard knocks. What is it about this super PAC which required so much expenditure on items which didn't support Ron Paul? How much of that was absolutely necessary and couldn't be worked around?

I'd still like to hear some explanation as to where the money went and how the expenses were generally unavoidable or, at least, transparent. But I acknowledge there are always two sides, at least, to a story. If this guy is a superstar for liberty then I really owe him an apology and I wouldn't mind giving that. But I sure would like to hear the details. And, as I said, it would be nice if we came up with a cleaner way than kangaroo court for dealing with the issues which come up.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28