Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sir Billy Conolly

Really.

What is he thinking?
«134

Comments

  • He was thinking that he's proud to have received a knighthood recognition for all he's hard work and success. What's the problem?
  • He has always said he's a socialist.
  • They're not socialist then. Ipso facto.
  • No socialist would, or could, accept a knighthood. If you are a socialist by definition you're not a monarchist. If you're not a monarchist you can't accept a knighthood.
    So he has at the last betrayed what he said he has been for all these years.
    Or in language he might understand he's a shit of the first degree.
  • Do as I say not as I do.
  • iainment said:

    No socialist would, or could, accept a knighthood. If you are a socialist by definition you're not a monarchist. If you're not a monarchist you can't accept a knighthood.
    So he has at the last betrayed what he said he has been for all these years.
    Or in language he might understand he's a shit of the first degree.

    Looks good on his CV perhaps.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Addickted said:

    I consider myself both a socialist and a monarchist.

    Who says I can't be both?

    My letter from Buck House must have gone missing in the post.

    Again.

    Exactly, same here. Some people just can't mentally handle the fact life is full of grey areas.
  • Addickted said:

    I consider myself both a socialist and a monarchist.

    Who says I can't be both?

    My letter from Buck House must have gone missing in the post.

    Again.

    You can't be both.
  • edited June 17
    Well I am.

    And so was Socrates
  • iainment said:

    Addickted said:

    I consider myself both a socialist and a monarchist.

    Who says I can't be both?

    My letter from Buck House must have gone missing in the post.

    Again.

    You can't be both.
    You're confusing fact for opinion again.
  • DRAddick said:

    Addickted said:

    I consider myself both a socialist and a monarchist.

    Who says I can't be both?

    My letter from Buck House must have gone missing in the post.

    Again.

    Exactly, same here. Some people just can't mentally handle the fact life is full of grey areas.
    So 100% this post.
  • edited June 17
    You're not. Either you are a monarchist. Or you are a leftish subject of the crown.
    You cannot be both a socialist and a subject of a crown.
    Look up the dictionary about socialism.
    I admire your work for your tenants but you are deluded if you think socialism and monarchism can ever comfortably exist side by side.
  • DRAddick said:

    Addickted said:

    I consider myself both a socialist and a monarchist.

    Who says I can't be both?

    My letter from Buck House must have gone missing in the post.

    Again.

    Exactly, same here. Some people just can't mentally handle the fact life is full of grey areas.
    Grey areas between socialism and a monarchy. Please enlighten me.
  • Life is not always black and white.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Game, Set and Match to Addickted right there.
  • Oh well that's 50 years of my life wasted. And all of those thinkers over the last 100 years or more who have defined socialism as being something separate from a monarchy.
    It's a bit like people who eat fish but insist they are vegetarian.
  • edited June 17
    A couple of hundred years ago you would be right as there was a complete real and philosophical divide between the Monarchy and the masses. However the meaning and role of monarchy has changed. Most monarchies in Europe including our own have no real power any more and are now just a public face. The Netherlands is classed as one of the most Socialist countries in the world but still has a Monarchy.
    As the roles have changed this has allowed philosophies and political lines to change and merge. The political and social waters are muddy, not clear.
  • iainment said:

    Oh well that's 50 years of my life wasted. And all of those thinkers over the last 100 years or more who have defined socialism as being something separate from a monarchy.
    It's a bit like people who eat fish but insist they are vegetarian.

    Or just they haven't heard of Pescetarianism.

  • edited June 17
    iainment said:

    No socialist would, or could, accept a knighthood. If you are a socialist by definition you're not a monarchist. If you're not a monarchist you can't accept a knighthood.
    So he has at the last betrayed what he said he has been for all these years.
    Or in language he might understand he's a shit of the first degree.

    So reversing your view.... If someone classes themselves as a capitalist and/or Monarchist they have too accept the Knighthood without question? But if they are not rich and/or refuse the Knighthood for separate political or personal reasons then they cannot be a capitalist or Monarchist and have to be a Socialist?
  • Addickted said:

    The defining aspect of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.

    A monarchial socialist ideology views the monarch as the embodiment of the proletariat. The means of production are collectively owned by the people, in whom sovereignty resides; however, that sovereignty is delegated to the monarch, who holds the means of production in trust for the people and manages the economy for the greater good.

    As I said, I'm a socialist monarchist and your view is an outdated political dogma.

    That's just mashed my brain!

    What on earth!
  • Look, you're all a bunch of filthy Communists.
Sign In or Register to comment.