I believe the grammar, and the previous statement is rather clear.
Actually I spoke nothing of what you are – I spoke of the artist comments stating that this particular piece speaks of neocons. I did not, nor will I lay a label on you that you have not yet defined yourself. Nowhere in any premise yet stated, spoke of your personal ideological view.
No, what I am trying to speak of are neoconservatives, the kind that seem to have never met a war they did not want America to get involved in, the kind that says we need to intertwine our civil laws with biblical laws etc..
“rest of us” well if you consider yourself a run of the mill or paleoconservative, then, as the “Artist Comments” plainly states and I shall quote the text in the Artist comment
“This picture is more so speaking of the neo-conservatives, I would gladly vote for an Eisenhower or Goldwater conservative any day of the week.... Though this is not speaking of any particular party - neo-cons can be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or even perhaps having no party.”
Nowhere did I state that most of you were what the image describes, if I thought it was a mass generalization that encompassed all conservatives I would have saw no need to specify that this piece was referring to neocons.
So it would seem, sir, that you read the conservative colossus and thought it was referring to anyone who thinks themselves conservative - -perhaps you did not read the artist comments where I state that it is only or more-so referring to neocons.
It would seem, sir, a simple misunderstanding and that is of course fine.
Is there more in which, sir, that needs to be discussed with respect to this particular image or..?
I agree, the original Iraq war was pointless … going after Saddam for something he did during the 1980s… which I believe was simply a cover for their oil reserves. Since if America was truly bothered by Saddam and his actions during the Halabja incident then we would have gone into Iraq in 1988.
I do not believe the title is misleading, these people are conservative – perhaps I expect too much of people and do expect people to read the artist comments to gather a better grasp of the image – but I am not responsible for what others may or may not do – or what others may or may not feel with respect or rather regarding the works in which I upload.
No thanks, if one cannot be bothered to read the Artist comments, I see no need, nor desire to rename the piece. But thanks for airing your concerns.
It would seem, with greatest respect, sir, of the two years of my having uploaded this, you were, only 1 of 2 that thought it was regarding all conservatives..
If one cannot read the Artist comments to see it does not mean ALL conservatives, then that is on them, good sir.
That is just it, sir, not all conservatives think the same.. there are people that consider themselves paleoconservative that have very similar views to neocons.. thus the piece, while mainly focusing on neoconservatives, it holds to those that have the views expressed within the piece itself.
I am unsure, sir, if there is more that needs to be discussed with respect to this particular piece? If there is I of course will address it when I see it as I am online for the 20-30 mins and shall address it immediately - - - if after that time I shall address it tomorrow.
If we are done here, I of course wish you a great day… evening.. or night depending on your location and/or perhaps the time you just happen to check this comment.