• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Also, are you sure you want people to rate your comments?

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you do not.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Trumpflation is an intolerable hardship for every American, and it’s Trump’s fault.

Fight them, without becoming them!

“Facilitate” is an active verb, not a weasel word.

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. do not touch it.”

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Dumb motherfuckers cannot understand a consequence that most 4 year olds have fully sorted out.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

The lights are all blinking red.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / z-Retired Categories / Previous Site Maintenance / Open Thread

Open Thread

by Michael D.|  April 16, 20085:29 am| 42 Comments

This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance

FacebookTweetEmail

What would you do with $3 trillion?

(via The GOS)

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Gaffe-In
Next Post: Pretentiousness Update »

Reader Interactions

42Comments

  1. 1.

    Pisco Sours

    April 16, 2008 at 5:34 am

    I’d become a supervillain, buy my own tropical island, unleash a plague that would threaten to turn everyone gay, and meet a grisly end at James Bond’s hands.

  2. 2.

    cleek

    April 16, 2008 at 6:01 am

    i’d get this run in all the major newspapers.

  3. 3.

    Pisco Sours

    April 16, 2008 at 6:13 am

    cleek, if that’s a rickroll, you’re going to be the first test subject for my new virus.

  4. 4.

    cleek

    April 16, 2008 at 6:18 am

    not a rickroll.. more of a dickroll.

  5. 5.

    jake

    April 16, 2008 at 6:36 am

    Bwraaak! Freedom isn’t free, bwraaak!

    /Propaganda Parrot

    unleash a plague that would threaten to turn everyone gay, and meet a grisly end at James Bond’s hands.

    If you turned George Bush gay I’d feed you to your damn piranhas myself. Cheney? You’d go in the tank, feet first and slo-o-o-w.

    Also, how does a plague threaten to turn someone gay? Notes, e-mail, phone message?

    Maybe we should just skip to the part where Bond drops you in the inexplicably placed giant food processor.

    Evil villains, hmmph!

  6. 6.

    Redhand

    April 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

    Ah, priceless, AND you can charge it to someone else’s Mastercard.

  7. 7.

    Rick Taylor

    April 16, 2008 at 7:15 am

    David Goodstein, a physicist and Vice Provost at Cal Tech, wrote a book called “Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil” in which he argued that civilization itself was threatened by the end of fossil fuels and the lack of some way to power it. He made the prediction, “Civilization as we know it will come to an end some time in this century, when the fuel runs out.” He said this was different from other scientific predictions, in that in making it he hoped it would be wrong, and in making the prediction he hoped to help make it wrong.

    I heard him interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air by Terry Gross (unfortunately the interview doesn’t seem to be available anymore). He made his usual prediction with the usual caveat, and she asked him, what if we put the resources we currently using towards the Iraq war to find alternative energy instead? Would that be enough? He paused for thought, as he hadn’t expected the question, and then answered yes it would.

  8. 8.

    ParagonPark

    April 16, 2008 at 7:35 am

    Nothing like “science” to provide objective information free from hyperbole, propaganda and the taint of political motivation.

    There are so many good reasons to oppose the war we really don’t even need to rely on the fallacious argument that military spending is bad for the economy let alone hypothetical solutions to hypothetical crises, where neither hypothesis is backed by anything more than a guy with a degree saying something outrageous so he can get a wider audience than he would for real science.

  9. 9.

    4tehlulz

    April 16, 2008 at 7:37 am

    Build something to whack this asteroid.

    Have a nice day!

  10. 10.

    Punchy

    April 16, 2008 at 7:59 am

    What would you do with $3 trillion?

    Buy a tank of gas, and use the $5.64 left over for a Slurpee and Corn Nuts.

  11. 11.

    Tim C

    April 16, 2008 at 8:05 am

    I would end world hunger.

  12. 12.

    Incertus

    April 16, 2008 at 8:09 am

    I’d buy a house in south Florida–almost.

    On a side note, the Catholic Church really needs to find a better ad agency, because those pictures don’t help their cause very much.

  13. 13.

    Crusty Dem

    April 16, 2008 at 8:12 am

    I tell you what I’d do, two girls at the same time.

    After that, i’d put a trillion into wind turbines, a couple hundred billion each into nuclear, solar, and fuel cell technology, and throw the rest at NIH for biomedical research. I might set aside a couple billion for “personal needs”, but that should do it.

    Then I would tell the Saudis to go Cheney themselves. Speaking of which, can I use this money to do unspeakable things to Dick Cheney? If so I would render him (extraordinarily) to Uzbekistan for boiling oil dippings and repeated sodomization with a rolled copy of the bill of rights (written in 72 pt helvetica bold)

  14. 14.

    4tehlulz

    April 16, 2008 at 8:13 am

    >>helvetica bold

    No way. That’s going too far.

  15. 15.

    cleek

    April 16, 2008 at 8:18 am

    72 pt helvetica bold

    No way. That’s going too far.

    truly. Helvetica is the cruelest of all the fonts… after MS Comic Sans, obviously.

  16. 16.

    Crusty Dem

    April 16, 2008 at 8:20 am

    I know some would prefer Times New Roman, but they’re just dirty fucking hippies.

  17. 17.

    TheFountainHead

    April 16, 2008 at 8:22 am

    Three trill, huh?

    Well, I could try and pay down my student loans with it…or I could just blow it all on a couple of Spitzer’s hookers.

  18. 18.

    Woodrowfan

    April 16, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Hire fact checkers for every radio talk show host in the county (of every political stripe), give them an interupt button, and everytime the radio host lied they’d be interupted with an airhorn and the fact checker would correct them.

    and feed the hungry, provide better medical care for every person in the US, fix the decaying bridges.

    Oh yeah, and buy a red 1976 Camero…. for me.

  19. 19.

    Soylent Green

    April 16, 2008 at 8:46 am

    Develop the technology to terraform and settle Mars, then give free tickets to all takers on the outgoing flights. Promise them their own states there with whatever belief systems and prejudices they choose as the law of the land. The U.S. of Mars: Biblethumpania, Wingnuttistan, Bigotland, and so forth. On the Dem side, Hillariana.

    Probably need some more trillions.

  20. 20.

    John Cole

    April 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

    That ad is actually exceedingly clever.

  21. 21.

    jrg

    April 16, 2008 at 9:05 am

    Nothing like “science” to provide objective information free from hyperbole, propaganda and the taint of political motivation.

    The federal government has to pay it’s debts just like everyone else. Maybe they will raise taxes to do it. Maybe they will print more money, causing inflation and further devaluation of the dollar. How are you proposing they do it?

    You’re right – this is not science, it’s common sense. If you go out and charge $30K on a credit card, you have to pay it back.

  22. 22.

    tBone

    April 16, 2008 at 9:14 am

    truly. Helvetica is the cruelest of all the fonts… after MS Comic Sans, obviously.

    Elitist. The Pious Pistol-Packing Pantsuit and other blue collar Americans like Helvetica, Times Roman and Comic Sans just fine. Your embrace of snooty contemporary typefaces just shows how out of touch you are.

    (On a related font-nerd note, there’s a documentary devoted to Helvetica . Really.)

  23. 23.

    Seitz

    April 16, 2008 at 9:18 am

    Here’s how I put it into perspective. We’ve spent over $500 billion on the war so far. How much is that really? Consider that the new stadium for the Washington Nationals cost $667 million. With just $500 billion (1/6th of the $3 trillion predicted), we could build a state of the art stadium or arena at roughly that price for:

    Every Major League Baseball Team (30 teams)
    Every National Football League Team (32 teams – and the Jets and Giants get their own stadiums!)
    Every National Basketball Association Team (30 teams – The Lakers and Clippers won’t have to share Staples Center!)
    Every National Hockey League Team (30 teams – and they wouldn’t even have to share with NBA teams!)
    Every Major League Soccer team (14 teams)
    Every Division 1 Football program (242 teams – Both Bowl and Playoff subdivisions!)
    Every Division 1 Basketball program (341 teams!)

    That’s about 720 shiny new stadiums. We’d even have enough left over to cover cost overruns and maybe some division 2 programs. And that’s just what we’ve spent so far. We get to spend that much five more times before it’s all over.

  24. 24.

    ParagonPark

    April 16, 2008 at 9:49 am

    jrg:

    The POINT is that government has to “pay” for all spending not just military spending. If instead of military spending the government spends the same money on things (such as alternative energy research that the good prof claims could solve the crisis he hypothersizes will exist in a century) we’d still havve to “pay” for that 3 trillion.

    the real difference is that, like it or not, military spending provides just about the greated ECONOMIC benefit possible from any form of government spending. What do you think military spending is?

    It’s salary and wages fror military personnel, which benefits us not only because those people use that money to purchase goods and services but also by reducing unemployment by reducing the civilain labor force. Military spending is also buying stuff like weapons, uniforms, food, supplies, etc. Buying stuff from people who make make stuff also helps the economy. when you add to the equation that military purchases are from domestic producers at a rate much higher than purchases in most other sectors that money is even more beneficial to the economy.

    As i said, there are a lot of reasons to oppose the war but the claim it is hurting the economy is he kind of nonsense only those with absolutely no understanding of the world around them will believe. Oppose the war for all sorts of reasons despite the fact it helps the economy, but understand that spending money on the military is not the same as burning money– the money spent flows directly into the domestic economy and grows it.

  25. 25.

    chopper

    April 16, 2008 at 9:53 am

    i’d buy a pushcart and push it up and down the street yelling ‘rags, old iron! marrow bones, tuppence a hogshead!’

  26. 26.

    AkaDad

    April 16, 2008 at 9:57 am

    I’d offer Keira Knightley a billion to sleep with me. After the inevitable bail, court costs, and lawyer fees, I’d use the rest of the money to start extracting our oil that’s sitting under Canadian soil, and then relocate the Israelis to Montana.

  27. 27.

    jrg

    April 16, 2008 at 10:17 am

    The real difference is that, like it or not, military spending provides just about the greated ECONOMIC benefit possible from any form of government spending.

    Nonsense. From the Congressional Budget Office:

    The most effective types of short-term fiscal stimulus (delivered either through tax cuts or increased spending on transfer payments) are those that direct money to people who are most likely to quickly spend the bulk of any additional funds provided to them.

    Sending money overseas to destroy and re-build Iraqi infrastructure is not an effective form of economic stimulus for the U.S. economy – It’s a method of moving money out of the U.S. economy.

    If someone in the U.S. is given a dollar as part of an economic stimulus package, that dollar gets spent in the U.S., stimulating helping American business. If you spend that dollar building a bridge in Iraq (that may or may not get blown up next month), that dollar is gone, and it’s not coming back.

  28. 28.

    Woodrowfan

    April 16, 2008 at 10:49 am

    If you go out and charge $30K on a credit card, you have to pay it back.

    I keep hoping we’ll find out we stole Norway’s credit card…

  29. 29.

    ParagonPark

    April 16, 2008 at 10:57 am

    trg:

    Don’t cite things you don’t understand. The CBO was offering an opinion on emergency measures to affect short term aggregate demand in response to the current or impending recession. It was not offering an analysis of the relative macroeconomic benefits of the various forms of spending.

    Obviously, it is of greater long-term, comprehensive benefit to create hundreds of thousands of jobs and spur extensive capital spending than to pump some one-time cash into the retail sector. I’m sure the CBO understands that and I know it was not attempting to suggest otherwise in that report. your concluding that from the report simply reinforces that you don’t know enough.

  30. 30.

    jrg

    April 16, 2008 at 11:08 am

    Don’t cite things you don’t understand.

    OK. How about you give me a link extolling the benefits of Iraq war spending on the U.S. economy. You are the one who’s suggesting said spending is beneficial – back it up.

  31. 31.

    Crusty Dem

    April 16, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Come on jrg, just think of what the war is doing for Halliburton’s bottom line. That’s cash money, baby! They’re just farming it out to local Iraqi firms and keeping 60-90 cents on the dollar. That money isn’t being left in Iraq, it’s going straight to the, ummm, let me see, yes, it’s going straight to the Cayman Islands. Kccching!

  32. 32.

    ParagonPark

    April 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    I have backed it up. In pure economic terms, no one seriously denies that military spending will increase GDP, GNP and also results in broader, more diffuse flow of of wealth than any other form of spending. Everyone paying attention also understands that the capital investment spurred by military spending has huge beneficial impacts.

    Have you been asleep? Do you not grasp why politicians fight to the last gasp to preserve military bases and/or defense contractor jobs– even when the military itself says the base is redundant or the product the defense contractor is producing is obsolete or inefficient? It’s because the people involved spend the money they make and that has huge economic benefit and people want it.

    War actually increases the benefit because it increases the demand for materiel that is consumed in the war. We need more weapons and more equipment to replace that which is lost and more people get paid more money to make them. those people buy more stuff, pay more taxes, accumulate greater pensions and all the rest. do you actually deny that is an undeniable reality?

    The arguments against war start with the moral and continue through the political and practical but the hiring of people to fight them and the production of things with which they fight have such obvious economic benefit it is necessary to argue we don’t want that wealth produced because of the moral and political costs not that it doesn’t produce wealth.

  33. 33.

    jrg

    April 16, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Everyone paying attention also understands that the capital investment spurred by military spending has huge beneficial impacts.

    I see. So no matter how (or in what country) the military spends tax dollars, those dollars have a positive effect on the U.S. economy simply because these dollars were spent by the military.

    Do you not grasp why politicians fight to the last gasp to preserve military bases and/or defense contractor jobs

    Um, gee, maybe because federal money spent towards state-side bases helps the states that receive that money, at the expense of those states that foot the bill? What you’re describing is pork.

    Where’s that link I asked you about, anyway?

    Here is a link for the IMF. Fell free to ignore it’s contents and continue your personal attacks. In the mean time, I think I’ll quote the article:

    High defense spending during a conflict and in the years immediately preceding it tends to come at the expense of macroeconomic stability—as reflected, for example, in higher budget deficits and rising inflation

  34. 34.

    Randall

    April 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    the money spent flows directly into the domestic economy and grows it

    some of the money flows into the domestic economy, but the type of spending the video is making fun of (W’s war) does
    not grow the economy, it hampers it. If it doesn’t stop soon it will destroy it.

  35. 35.

    jrg

    April 16, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    but the type of spending the video is making fun of (W’s war) does not grow the economy, it hampers it.

    Clearly you don’t know much about economics.

    As long as the person spending money is sporting cammos and high and tight, the spending helps the economy. Hell, the military could be paying peasants in Nairobi to dig holes in the ground and fill them back up, it’s will always be the best bang for the U.S. taxpayer’s buck.

    The military is a magical wealth machine. As long as they are the ones spending money, anything they buy (and at any price) is good for the economy.

    That’s why North Korea is such an economic powerhouse.

  36. 36.

    Randall

    April 16, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Clearly you don’t know much about economics

    I forgot about the magical military wealth machine. Do we own those holes in Nairobi after they are filled back up?

  37. 37.

    ParagonPark

    April 16, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    trg:

    Again you are citing sources you do not understand that are evaluating something different. From the IMf report:

    “However, little analysis has been done to show how conflict and terrorism affect macroeconomic performance and public finances either within or across a large number of countries. Our research is intended to fill this gap. We first assess the impact of armed conflict within countries by examining the evolution of macroeconomic and fiscal variables (such as growth, inflation, government revenues, expenditures, and budget balances) before (three years, on average), during, and after (three years, on average) 22 episodes in up to 20 conflict-afflicted countries between 1985 and 1999. Six of these are in Africa, three in Latin America, two each in Asia and the Middle East, and seven in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union

    So you will cease embarassing yourself, this study is assessing the impact of wars (or armed conflicts if you prefer)that took place PHYSICALLY WITHIN THOSE COUNTRIES’ BORDERS!!!!!!!!!!!

    I HAVE NOT SUGGESTED WAR IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE FIGHTING IS ACTIVELY TAKING PLACE!!!!!!!

    I think we can all agree being in a war zone is bad for business and that business is likely to pick up once the fighting stops– which are the shocking findings of that IMF report (spending money on such studies is precisely the type of spending that does the least good– BTW)

    Citing a report that finds that internal war hurts the economies of small, weak, struggling nations has nothing whatsoever to do with disproving the undeniable benefits to a huge, powerful, wealthy nation with excess capacity going under-utilized spending money to fight some place else.

    That should be obvious.

  38. 38.

    jrg

    April 16, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Read. The. Fucking. Article.

    We first assess the impact of armed conflict within countries by examining the evolution of macroeconomic and fiscal variables

    ….

    Then, to examine more rigorously the effects of conflict and terrorism, we econometrically estimate a system of interlinked equations covering a wider range of 45 countries, including those not affected by conflict and terrorism. Our findings confirm that armed conflict and terrorism hurt economic growth and public finances, raising important issues for policymakers.

    Using your logic, North Korea should be in better economic shape than the rest of the world. You have not addressed that point, you have not provided me with any links from reputable sources to say that the Iraq war is good for the economy.

    In fact, the crux of your argument seems to be “the military can spend money on anything, and it will be good for the economy, because it’s the military”.

    Back your arguments up with a link, or we’re done. I’m not going to waste time debating someone who’s just pulling stuff out of their ass.

  39. 39.

    ParagonPark

    April 16, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Let me explain this reallllllllly sLoooooowly for you. They compared the countries that experienced war within their borders to other countries that were otherwise demographically similar so that they could discount variables OTHER THAN THE FACT THOSE COUNTRIES HAD WARS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS AS BEING SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE LESSENED ECONOMIC PROPORTION OCCASIONED BY THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY ARMED CONFLICT.

    So if countries A, B and C are demographically quite similar but there is a war going on in A the fact B and C are performing better helps support the thesis that the presenrce of people killin each other in military battles within the country isn’t a good thing. Of course, most of us probably could have guessed that without the comparative data study.

    You are making one hell of an unitended case for the need for spending more money to improve our educational system– unless you were educated abroad.

  40. 40.

    jrg

    April 16, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    The article is about the effects of military expenditures on the financial stability of countries involved in conflict. Again, from the link:

    ICRG ratings allow analysis of the impact of conflict and terrorism on a wide range of countries and not just on those that have had major armed conflicts as defined by SIPRI.

    The study in this article is not limited to countries with armed conflicts within their borders. Clearly, you’re having a bit of trouble understanding that, so I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader.

  41. 41.

    Zuzu

    April 16, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    the real difference is that, like it or not, military spending provides just about the greated ECONOMIC benefit possible from any form of government spending. What do you think military spending is?

    Well except that the $3 trillion cost wasn’t all calculated in the usual “military spending” sense you’re thinking of.

    For instance:

    5. Add the full costs of health care and disability payments for returning veterans. This is one of the biggest long-term financial obligations we face. Under any realistic scenario at least 2.1 million individuals will have done a tour in Iraq before the war is over. Some 44 percent of veterans of the 1991 Gulf War—a war that lasted only a few weeks—have applied for disability compensation, and nearly 90 percent of their claims have been approved. (Today we still spend $4.3 billion per year paying disability compensation to veterans of that short war.) Judging from the number of claims that have been filed already, we project that at least a comparable percentage of Iraq veterans will be entitled to receive disability pensions as a result of the Iraq conflict—and the severity of their disabilities (and amount of monthly compensation) may well be higher. These costs can be considered “promissory notes” of the war—accrued liabilities that must be paid. Our estimate of the cost of these accrued liabilities comes to roughly $590 billion over the lifetime of our Iraq-war veterans.

    The $3 Trillion War

  42. 42.

    Zuzu

    April 16, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    It’s salary and wages fror military personnel, which benefits us not only because those people use that money to purchase goods and services but also by reducing unemployment by reducing the civilain labor force.

    Well, not everyone finds the equation quite so simple:

    Similarly, relying on the National Guard and the reserves to help fight the war removes hundreds of thousands of workers from the civilian labor force, imposing real costs on the economy as a whole—not to mention on the men and women who are suddenly called to active duty, and on their families.

    ….

    9. Estimate the cost to the economy. There are many social and economic costs of the war outside the purely budgetary ones; although they may be large, they are hard to quantify. For instance, death benefits do not adequately reflect the loss in economic output that each death represents, and disability payments are far less than what disabled individuals would have earned had they been able to pursue a normal life. In at least one in five affected families, someone will have to give up a job to provide care. Many from the National Guard and reserves who are called to duty have careers interrupted and family life destroyed. The budgetary cost to the government is far less than the burden that these individuals end up shouldering. The estimated cost to the economy is $370 billion, in addition to the budgetary costs.

    The $3 Trillion War

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - way2blue - SINALEI, SAMOA—RESPITE EDITION—FEBRUARY 2025.  (second of five) 7
Image by way2blue (7/13/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Chetan Murthy on War for Ukraine Day 1,235: A Brief Sunday Night Update (Jul 13, 2025 @ 10:24pm)
  • FastEdD on Sunday Night Open Thread (Jul 13, 2025 @ 10:23pm)
  • Gloria DryGarden on Medium Cool – Navel Gazing! (Jul 13, 2025 @ 10:22pm)
  • Jay on War for Ukraine Day 1,235: A Brief Sunday Night Update (Jul 13, 2025 @ 10:20pm)
  • Gloria DryGarden on Medium Cool – Navel Gazing! (Jul 13, 2025 @ 10:20pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!