Very true. Good thing about communism is that it requires work for compensation, while socialism just distrubutes wealth, even if no effort is made by an individual to earn money.
If a vendor sells you something they later wish they had back, the government will prosecute you for theft. It’s the worst possible role the government could play.
The correct system you’re thinking of here would be that the Democrats raise the slam tax, therefore causing Republicans to give up more of their slams.
The Democrats think that an increased spending of slams will stimulate the economy. But as we all know, when you throw the remainder of your tenderloin to the dogs, it’s not tenderloin anymore, just scraps.
So would that mean that bedroom communism would be evenly splitting up your time between all of them?
14 years ago at 9:00 amThat would be assigning each of them a specialized task, and then providing each with equal compensation, as determined by the governing party.
14 years ago at 9:02 amRegardless of their physical attractiveness or qualifications to be slampieces, yes.
14 years ago at 9:02 amVery true. Good thing about communism is that it requires work for compensation, while socialism just distrubutes wealth, even if no effort is made by an individual to earn money.
14 years ago at 9:05 am“Ugly people deserve love, too.” = “To each, according to his need”
14 years ago at 9:05 amHowever, pure capitalism shits on both and then vomits on their respective ideals for good measure.
14 years ago at 9:05 amI think we need to specify the government’s role in this economy before we can move ahead.
14 years ago at 9:12 amIf a vendor sells you something they later wish they had back, the government will prosecute you for theft. It’s the worst possible role the government could play.
14 years ago at 9:22 amBedroom Fascism: screaming at your slams then forcing them to do what you say, then you take over the bedroom next to you.
14 years ago at 5:39 pmThis morning has started off much better than yesterday. Frat on. Free market slams. TFM
14 years ago at 9:00 amLet me know when you issue an IPO
14 years ago at 9:02 am^haha
14 years ago at 11:07 amIt’s all about being the bedroom dick tator
14 years ago at 9:03 amBedroom authoritarianism. FaF
14 years ago at 9:07 am^This
14 years ago at 11:13 amThe democrats give there slams to those who are not fortunate enough to have slams.
14 years ago at 9:12 amAren’t democrats and slams an oxymoron?
14 years ago at 9:19 am^^This fucking guy haha.
14 years ago at 9:22 amTaking slams away from the individuals who work hard to earn their high volume of slams to those who don’t work at all for them. NF.
14 years ago at 9:22 amThe correct system you’re thinking of here would be that the Democrats raise the slam tax, therefore causing Republicans to give up more of their slams.
14 years ago at 9:22 amHopefully such a move does not create a stagnant slam economy.
14 years ago at 9:32 amAfter they raise taxes
14 years ago at 9:36 amThe Democrats think that an increased spending of slams will stimulate the economy. But as we all know, when you throw the remainder of your tenderloin to the dogs, it’s not tenderloin anymore, just scraps.
14 years ago at 9:36 am^This fucking guy
14 years ago at 10:21 amDemocrats don’t have slams. They have dykes and feminists who occasionally give them a pity fuck.
14 years ago at 10:25 amThe democratic slam is Rachel Maddow
14 years ago at 10:36 amDems giving away slams they don’t have, “Slam Deficit”?
14 years ago at 3:55 pmPerfect Markets TFM
14 years ago at 11:16 amBedroom anarchy. TFTC.
14 years ago at 11:33 amSo would calling your last resort slam be considered a bailout?
14 years ago at 3:36 pm^^ Both of these guys
14 years ago at 9:52 pm