The Triskaidekaphobia Open Thread

Yes Peach Puniteers, it’s Friday the 13th! Be sure not to agitate the situation by breaking any mirrors, walking under ladders or letting a black cat cross your path. It might be better to be a little agoraphobic and stay inside, commenting on this open thread.


  1. Simons Political Group says:

    Attorney General Candidate Max Wood Speaks Out Against Obama and Holder Decision

    This is the former United States Attorney and the candidate for Georgia’s Attorney General, Max Wood, recent comment on the Obama Administration’s announcement involving the decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the United States District Court. Khalid Sheikh Mohammaed and four other individuals are accused of conspiring and being the masterminds behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001.

    Max Wood commented, “This is an absolutely outrageous decision. It flies in the face of legal history and military history. It is an insult to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have served in the Global War On Terror. This also has the potential to jeopardize our National Security because under federal criminal discovery rules, the United States Government may be required to release classified information. This President and this Attorney General are making a mockery of our country’s previous efforts to fight Islamic Extremists.”

    Max Wood served as the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia from 2001-2009 and he is also a Colonel in the Georgia Air National Guard. He served as the United States Department of Justice Attache’ in Iraq from May 2005 to August 2006 and is a candidate for Georgia Attorney General.

    • Sleepy Tom says:

      As I recall, Holder’s statement was that “even if they are not found guilty, I will not release them on American soil.”

      If Max Wood disagrees with that statement, then Max might remain in a Middle-Georgia swamp.

  2. Fawkes says:

    Friday the 13th of November and John Oxendine is still an egotistical, hard-headed, narcissist who believes Georgia belongs to him.

    He also suffers from “Caesar syndrome”: His followers have whispered “You are God” in his ear so many times that he actually believes it.

  3. Jeremy Jones says:

    I see many people complain about the ballot access laws in Georgia. What might a solution be to the problem? Obviously we do not want 150+ people on the ballot like they had when Arnold Schwoafhekdjfedkfneger was first elected in California.

    • ByteMe says:

      Just some facts:

      Schwarzenegger took 47.9 percent of the vote to win the election. The next closest candidate was Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, with 32.3 percent of the vote.

      Doesn’t matter how many people were running when you beat your next closest competitor by 800,000 votes with over 65% of the people voting.

    • Jeremy Jones says:

      of course not, but, what are some solutions to the ballot access laws in Georgia. If one agrees they are to strict and/or cumbersome, what measures should be done to ease them enough to be acceptable, but not so easy we have ballots filled with 100’s of candidates?

      • ByteMe says:

        You really think there would be 100’s of candidates for a job where you get to be called a “Nazi/Socialist/Marxist” by voting for or not voting for health care reform?

        Ballot access laws should be the same for anyone, that should be the rule. If you have to get signatures from 10% of the population to be a third-party candidate, you should have to as part of the major parties as well. (Yes, I made up the number, but you get my point).

        • Jeremy Jones says:

          You said “parties” but did you mean candidate? So every candidate would need to get X number of signatures prior to being put on a ballot?

          Would anyone care to share how the verification process, especially costs, would be for that? I assume there have been some attempts at a third party access where signatures were verified, how much did that cost?

          • ByteMe says:

            You’re getting too literal and missing the point. What does a candidate have to do to get on the ballot if they’re part of a party? What do they have to do if they want to run as an independent? The rules need to be exactly the same and not too huge of a hurdle to get people on the ballot.

          • AubieTurtle says:

            Why have parties?

            1) So that candidates are associated with a team that the voters can pick and stick with instead of learning about the candidates themselves

            2) To serve as a central clearinghouse for influence peddling

            3) The Beastie Boys fought for your right to PAAAAAAAAAAARTY! Don’t disappoint them.

          • Jeremy Jones says:

            You want the rules to be the same, which seems logical. What rules would like for those to be? Under the current system, to get on the primary, I pay my fee, and I am on the ballot in the party’s primary. Someone like Eugene Moon will not have a primary, since he is not affiliated with a party. Would he be required to just pay the fee for the November ballot, or would everyone not running for party affiliation all be running for the “independent/not affiliated spot” have a primary?

            I do not like blogs for these types of discussions, for I am sure you are taking me as argumentative, I am not, I am really just trying to learn more about the thoughts of those who want different ballot access laws. I keep seeing people want the law changed, but I never see suggestions.

            Thanks for taking the time to discuss.

          • Jeremy Jones says:

            I cannot say I am or not, it is an issue of which I admit a level of ignorance, hence, my desire to learn more about the topic. On the surface, I see the need for more ballot access, however, I would like to know purposed solutions before being an advocate for “better ballot access.” Is it possible, as arcane and “unfair” as ours may be, is it the best one? I don’t know. I look forward to learning more about the subject.

            I certainly anticipated more feedback, as much as I read people hear clamoring for more ballot access, but, it is high school playoffs, the Dawgs play Auburn, tomorrow, I guess I should not expect much activity this weekend!

          • Game Fan says:

            Hey Fawkie
            I think you meant to say:
            “That begs the question:…”
            Or even better:
            “…Which begs the question:…” 🙂

            Which begs the question can a question be boded instead of begged on Friday the 13th? 🙂

    • Doug Deal says:

      After having used it for a couple days, I give it a definite thumbs up. It is better than I expected. The text is extremely sharp and it is hard to believe it is not printed paper.

  4. Game Fan says:

    Since this is an open thread, I was wondering if anybody, and I mean ANYBODY actually understands what’s in the House version Of Obamacare which passed? What are the worst case scenarios? Of course the bureaucrats will simply go as far as they can under the political and legal circumstances they face on the street. Hardly what you could call “Rule of law and the Constitution”. But my real question would be will they try to close my clinic?

    • ByteMe says:

      Doesn’t matter. This isn’t the bill you need to really worry about, because it won’t pass the Senate. It’s the merged bill that you have to spend the time to read, once that’s been created.

Comments are closed.