[C. Edmund Wright]

>> No, YOU are talking shit. I said plainly the rules in play are the rules in play and if you don’t adapt to the rules in play then you lose. >>

Let’s examine your logic. Adopt the rules or lose, right?
Ok, fine. Obama Care is a rule. Let’s adopt it. The IRS tax code is a rule. Let’s not fight it, let’s just “play by it.” Same with every other ridiculous rule and law in society I guess.

Your problem is that that you fail to understand human nature; stupid rules are only changed when they come into focus with poor application and they are only changed by those offended by the stupidity of the rule.

Thus, attempting to follow it - as Newt and Perry have done - yet working to throw it out because it’s a stupid rule is exactly what a good conservative should do. Your “rules are rules” position, if taken to its natural conclusion, means we should simply live by every rule and law that is currently written and just “adopt it” or lose.

I refuse to live that way. Every true conservative does.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Your “rules are rules” position, if taken to its natural conclusion, means we should simply live by every rule and law that is currently written and just “adopt it” or lose."

Nice try Jackwagon but again you don't get it. I said plainly you don't whine about the rules AFTER you lose you either do something beforehand or you must adapt and play on the field as is.

But you want to change the rules After THE GAME IS OVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO WIN AFTER THE CONTEST IS DECIDED. You know like liberals do in the courts after they lose and Election.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Great post! (But they are totally fixated on their legalistic/fundamental little philosophy) They won’t hear a word you said and they will come back with a claim that you are “attacking” again.

[P-Marlowe]

Your “rules are rules” position, if taken to its natural conclusion, means we should simply live by every rule and law that is currently written and just “adopt it” or lose.

When a rule is arbitrary it is not a legitimate rule. The rule must have a reasonable and rational relationship to a legitimate legislative goal. Here there is no legitimate argument that can be made for the enforcement of this rule. Under this rule it is quite possible that no candidate could qualify for the ballot. The method of getting around that outcome, by not checking the legitimacy of the signatures of any candidate who submits 15,000 signatures encourages the very kind of ACORN fraud that the Tea Party was organized to combat.

There is no rational basis for these rules. Therefore the State cannot legitimately enforce them.