You are still missing the entire analogy. Re-read my previous post.
The fighting armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. The first formal acts of armed warfare did not occur for another month. Lincoln launched a fleet of warships tasked to fight their way into Fort Sumter for the purpose of reinforcing its garrison on or about April 6, 1861. Confederates caught word of Lincoln's plan and took the fort on April 12, 1861. Lincoln's fleet arrived on April 13, 1861, too late to do anything.
Unless you think that Lincoln had some deal with the South Carolina Legislature, the analogy fails.
No, as that was not the analogy to begin with. Had you read the article, you would know that. But instead, unable to deal with the fact that strong Lincolnian elements appeared during Palpatine's speech, you launched into a diatribe in which you created that alternative analogy of straw in order to divert attention from the actual one made in the article.
If you do, you are well into the conspiracy zone.
Surely I would not be deeper into the conspiracy zone than a person such as yourself who constructs his own false analogies and assigns them to his opponents so that he may replace their valid analogies with something easier to combat in argument, and all of this for the purpose of allowing himself to avoid the reality that strong Lincolnian themes appeared in the speech of one of the great villians of movie history.
Palpatine rhetoric (I don't want this authority and will return it) was not what gave him the power.The vote occured before he even spoke to the Senate.
Again you are constructing a creature of straw with which to joust. The real analogy, not the straw conspiracy one you have created, was drawn between Palpatine's appeal to the union of the republic itself in opposition to the secessionist movement he created. Also, if you had watched the movie while you were in attendance there last Friday night, you would know that the motion itself was prearranged, again on an appeal to the union and its "needed" army.
Moreover, it was Palpatine's treasonous machinachations that gave him the power.
No, they merely facilitated it.
Only someone who considers Lincoln a villain would read into the speeches what you do.
No, as I don't consider Lincoln to be a villain. Rather, he was a politician. It is a rohschat (sp?) test. For Neo-confederates, the symbolism is clear.
On the flip side, it could similarly serve as a test for those who view Lincoln as a "greatness" beyond his historically skilled and inescapably flawed person. For Lincoln worshipers, the symbolism is willfully ignored.
Unfortunately, you are using a leftist technique of deconstructing the work to suit your political ends.
Am I? Cause I have readily identified several propaganda techniques commonly employed by the left (i.e. the construction of straw men) in your own attempts to discredit, or more appropriately distract from the analogy of clear Lincolnian elements in Palpatine's speech. That would seem to indicate that you, rather than myself, are currently engaged in the very techniques you speak of.
Lucas has made it very clear that the fall of the Republic is only loosely based on the fall of the Roman Republic.
Indeed, but that fact bears little relevance to and certainly does not exclude him from drawing upon historical motifs from elsewhere.
The fighting armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
GOPCapitalist responded:
,/I> Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. The first formal acts of armed warfare did not occur for another month. Lincoln launched a fleet of warships tasked to fight their way into Fort Sumter for the purpose of reinforcing its garrison on or about April 6, 1861. Confederates caught word of Lincoln's plan and took the fort on April 12, 1861. Lincoln's fleet arrived on April 13, 1861, too late to do anything.
You are correct. I changed what I was saying midsentence and failed to proofread my post. I meant to write:
The armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
This is a simple fact. Southern Militia stormed Federal armories before Lincoln was sworn in. Regardless of the date, this was no less sedition than the actions of John Brown.
No, as that was not the analogy to begin with. Had you read the article, you would know that. But instead, unable to deal with the fact that strong Lincolnian elements appeared during Palpatine's speech, you launched into a diatribe in which you created that alternative analogy of straw in order to divert attention from the actual one made in the article.
1. There were only Lincolnian elements for those who equate Lincoln with Democratic Tyranny. I think that the speech more clearly connotes speaches by Pompey and Caesar.
Again you are constructing a creature of straw with which to joust. The real analogy, not the straw conspiracy one you have created, was drawn between Palpatine's appeal to the union of the republic itself in opposition to the secessionist movement he created.
Thank you. Lincoln created no secessionist movement.
Also, if you had watched the movie while you were in attendance there last Friday night, you would know that the motion itself was prearranged, again on an appeal to the union and its "needed" army.
Yes, and had you watched the movie, you would know that the enter seccession and the armies were created by Palpatine and his protoge, Dooku. On the flip side, it could similarly serve as a test for those who view Lincoln as a "greatness" beyond his historically skilled and inescapably flawed person. For Lincoln worshipers, the symbolism is willfully ignored.
You see Palpatine as Lincoln, I don't. Lincoln was hardly a perfect man. He was no Washington. Neither was Jefferson Davis.
Am I? Cause I have readily identified several propaganda techniques commonly employed by the left (i.e. the construction of straw men) in your own attempts to discredit, or more appropriately distract from the analogy of clear Lincolnian elements in Palpatine's speech. That would seem to indicate that you, rather than myself, are currently engaged in the very techniques you speak of.
1. A straw man arguement, something you also use is a debating technique devoid of idology. The same is true for reducto ad absurdum. Deconstructionism was created by Michele Foucault.
2. Pointing out flaws is not a distraction to anyone but one who sees only his arguement.
Indeed, but that fact bears little relevance to and certainly does not exclude him from drawing upon historical motifs from elsewhere.
Lucas has never once mentioned the American Civil war. You are reading into a movie, something which is not there.