Why vote Sinn Fein?

Time Magazine

Zebra3 wrote:

Simple. America invades Iraq, what's the first thing it does? It changes the currency Iraq sells their oil in from euros to dollars. Suddenly, America is getting oil a helluva lot cheaper (roughly 17%). A lot of people would call that stealing.

Well there are two major problems here. First of all, that's not how exchange rates work. As of 15:56 UTC on February 18th, the exchange rate between Euro and GBP is €100 -> £68.33. If I'm offering you something in British pounds, it is not 32% ((100-68)/100) cheaper. It is the same price.

Secondly, the price of oil has sky-rocketed since the war in Iraq. It's costing importers more, and getting exporting countries such as Iraq higher revenues.

Zebra3 wrote:

On FG being more than happy for the US to use Ireland on their way to murdering Iraqis? If they get into power are they gonna stop the US landing here on their way to killing/torturing Iraqis?

I don't know the official line on Shannon, but yes they would stop the US landing here on the way to "torturing Iraqis".

As I said above, will FG turn American troops away?

You know, I wasn't going to get into this but I will now. Fine Gael opposed the war, seeking a UN resolution all the way. The war happened, and now it's absolutely f*cked up. I think the Americans should stay as long the Iraqi government want them to stay. I believe if the Iraqi government genuinely request it, a UN resolution is not necessary, and that we should facilitate the US in getting there if we want it. Needless to say, if the Iraqi govt want America out (which I assume they will if they "kill/torture" their people), they should not be allowed land here.

That's a reasonable policy. It's not morally corrupt. You cannot use that as a defence for Sinn Féin. If the Iraqis want them out, we will not aid them. If the Iraqis want them there, we will aid them - because otherwise I assume it would be even worse in Iraq.

Consistently?

Yes, consistently:

July 2002, wrote:

[/url] Fine Gael and Labour Finance spokesmen, Phil Hogan and Tommy Broughan, will argue that the deviousness of the tax evading in Ansbacher requires penalties more significant than mere money.

[QUOTE=Richard Bruton, February 2004, http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/02/05/story620584739.asp]
Fine Gael deputy leader Richard Bruton criticised the retention of the tax breaks, which he said favoured the well-off. "No ceiling has been placed on the degree to which well-placed individuals can reduce their tax contribution to zero through the use of these reliefs," he said.
[/QUOTE]

Dublin South YFG wrote:

Young Fine Gael seeks the capping of the Artists [sic.] Tax Exemption on earnings over

How many of these laws survived the last FG-led government?

The Artists' Exemption policy only came about after Fine Gael left power in 1997. It first arose around 2003.

Well was the McCracken Tribunal not set up by an FG-led government? Why didn't these people face the same courts as the man in the street would?

Tribunals can be set up to gather information. This is outside the remits of the courts, where justice is administered. It is up to the DPP, an independent body, to seek conviction.

Michael Lowry was essentially kicked out of the party the day the allegations with Ben Dunne were substanstiated. No party can guarantee that all of their members will act properly. What matters, from the party's perspective, is how the matter is dealt with. He was told he would never run for Fine Gael again, and hasn't since, even though he would definitely be another TD for them.

A lot of people would see this as corruption. Politicans deciding that some people are too important to go through normal criminal proceedings.

Politicians don't call the shots about who goes through normal criminal proceedings or not.

Corruption is not just about getting caught with a batch of unmarked fifties.

I completely agree.

Angry Banana wrote:

And in your reply, please respond to the ten points I made above and, if applicable to Earthman's comments about progress since the Civil War.

Zebra3 wrote:

cos 1

Calina

constitutionus wrote:

if this is true and you have proof then you are obligied by law to go down to your local gardai station, present it ,and DEMAND the arrest of every sitting SF councillor and TD.

BUT YOU CANT DO THAT CAN YOU

because your just peddling propaganda to cover the fact the main stream parties cant offer anything of any tangible difference to FF/PDs. and THATS why SF will romp home at the next election . you dont like it, fine, but they do offer a geniune alternative as oppossed to the "were just more of the same " platform FG and LABOUR are standing on

i might not stand bertie, but i despair at the idea of enda "dont count on me in a crunch " kenny running the country

Effectively, all political parties say what they think people want to hear. In that respect, I don't think Sinn Féin are any different to the current lot of, how shall I put it, more widely respected political parties. They certainly don't deserve any more credit for it anyway.

For me, a romp home at a general election in Ireland means getting at least 80 seats. I don't think Sinn Féin will even field that many candidates. Even if they do, I'd be very surprised if they come close winning that many seats. If you're prepared to call 10 seats a romp home, I'm sorry, I think it's delusional.

In any case, currently, Sinn Féin don't appear to be offering anything that I'd like to buy into, and additionally, they still remain tainted by association with the IRA - regardless of whether or not they are one and the same. They appear to have had a lot of influence over the IRA over the years, as they are claiming credit for bringing about the various ceasefires. I'm not entirely sure how you define "totally separate" under those circumstances.

I'm very dubious about how they plan to finance their plans. To the extent that I know very much about their policies at all I am cynical enough to believe that they are promising anything they can on the grounds that they can count on not being in a position to have to deliver. In other words, they are promising this wonderful alternative safe in the knowledge that right now, at least, they won't be called upon to deliver it.

You might not want to see Enda Kenny running the country but I'd have a lot more faith in him than I do in Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin members appear to have some difficulty with the concept of right and wrong in a democracy, particular insofar as the murder of law enforcement officers here is concerned. As such I would be reluctant to trust them to represent me. That's not to say I would vote FG - personally I think that Enda Kenny was probably not the best choice of leader for FG last time round, but that's for FG members to decide, not me. Not only that, I'd also have to add that there seems to be a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Sinn Féin don't even appear to have their own shop fully in order given that a couple of of long standing moles got outed in the last few months.

You might want to believe in them. It's your prerogative. But I've been around a long time, and while I might be cynical enough about the current crop in FF and FG, whatever about the smaller parties, I'm not willing to give Sinn Féin any easier ride or a chance just because they are different. They need to earn my respect and frankly, they've done a God-awful job in trying so far.

Cork

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Who has been convicted then?

Looking for proof and convictions?

Not all IRA murders have convictions.

You would probably then dis believe such murders?

. Niall Binead, one of his electoral workers, was arrested and convicted in late 2004 of his involvement in, among other things, an IRA spy ring that gathered intelligence on cabinet ministers and TDs.

SF/IRA put the unity of this county back generations with their little spectaulers.

At least Enda Kenny (and I also dislike him) has no qualms about condemning the cold blooded murder.

Provos seem to have trouble.

Time Magazine

constitutionus wrote:

like i said, you have proof, get all the SF people arrested for membership of an illegal organisation. oh thats right YOU CANT . peddle your biggotry elswhere

Biggotry? Grow up! I'm a white, Irish catholic! If you're not going to answer the ten points I made up above, please answer me this: which party admit to have a "special relationship" with an illegal paramilitary organisation and whose membership constantly defend the actions of said organisation, even in this thread.

when the PDs were formed they had 30 seats

For God's sake your political knowledge is ludicrous. The PD's have never had more than 14 seats in the Dáil.

people thought labour were the next alternative in the 90's but were lacking when push came to shove, if SF play their cards right they could be one of the biggest parties in the dail within 10 years. and theres sod all all the shinner bashing can to to change that

And if the PD's played their cards right they could have their 30 seats back :rolleyes:.

constitutionus

Calina wrote:

Effectively, all political parties say what they think people want to hear. In that respect, I don't think Sinn Féin are any different to the current lot of, how shall I put it, more widely respected political parties. They certainly don't deserve any more credit for it anyway.

For me, a romp home at a general election in Ireland means getting at least 80 seats. I don't think Sinn Féin will even field that many candidates. Even if they do, I'd be very surprised if they come close winning that many seats. If you're prepared to call 10 seats a romp home, I'm sorry, I think it's delusional.

In any case, currently, Sinn Féin don't appear to be offering anything that I'd like to buy into, and additionally, they still remain tainted by association with the IRA - regardless of whether or not they are one and the same. They appear to have had a lot of influence over the IRA over the years, as they are claiming credit for bringing about the various ceasefires. I'm not entirely sure how you define "totally separate" under those circumstances.

I'm very dubious about how they plan to finance their plans. To the extent that I know very much about their policies at all I am cynical enough to believe that they are promising anything they can on the grounds that they can count on not being in a position to have to deliver. In other words, they are promising this wonderful alternative safe in the knowledge that right now, at least, they won't be called upon to deliver it.

You might not want to see Enda Kenny running the country but I'd have a lot more faith in him than I do in Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin members appear to have some difficulty with the concept of right and wrong in a democracy, particular insofar as the murder of law enforcement officers here is concerned. As such I would be reluctant to trust them to represent me. That's not to say I would vote FG - personally I think that Enda Kenny was probably not the best choice of leader for FG last time round, but that's for FG members to decide, not me. Not only that, I'd also have to add that there seems to be a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Sinn Féin don't even appear to have their own shop fully in order given that a couple of of long standing moles got outed in the last few months.

You might want to believe in them. It's your prerogative. But I've been around a long time, and while I might be cynical enough about the current crop in FF and FG, whatever about the smaller parties, I'm not willing to give Sinn Féin any easier ride or a chance just because they are different. They need to earn my respect and frankly, they've done a God-awful job in trying so far.

THANK YOU . finally someone with a constructive comment instead of constantly bashing out old cliches.

dont misunderstand me , im voting SF NOT to get em in power but to increase their presence in the dail. i'd prefer if they were in opposition because thats where i think theyll do the most good (but wouldnt be surprised if they hooked up in a SF/FF gov). im SICK of people like rabbite and kenny telling me their "the opposition" and then doing deals to advance themselves WITH the government. honnestly LOOK at all the scandals that have happened over this government and WHOS been the one's uncovering it? the bloody socialist and the independants. where the hell was LABOUR over gamma ? what happened to enda kenny FOR TWO MONTHS with the rossport 5 affair?
im as cynical as yourself , but i reckon SF is hungry enough to actually still do their job and listen to their grassroots. labour FF and FG left them long ago for the horsey set.

your right though , 20 years from now they'll probably be the same as FF. but thats 20 years we have before we have to look for someone else:)

Time Magazine

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Who has been convicted then?

You could equally apply this to the British forces. Nobody has, and nobody will be, convicted for anything other than causing a riot on Bloody Sunday.

The fact that there haven't been convicitons, in this case, only adds insult to injury.

Ditto IRA.

constitutionus

Angry Banana wrote:

Biggotry? Grow up! I'm a white, Irish catholic! If you're not going to answer the ten points I made up above, please answer me this: which party admit to have a "special relationship" with an illegal paramilitary organisation and whose membership constantly defend the actions of said organisation, even in this thread.



For God's sake your political knowledge is ludicrous. The PD's have never had more than 14 seats in the Dáil.

And if the PD's played their cards right they could have their 30 seats back :rolleyes:.

WHEN THE **** WAS I TALKING TO YOU!:mad: and if you think being white and catholic means you cant be a biggot then YOUR the one who needs to grow up

A Dub in Glasgo

Angry Banana wrote:

You could equally apply this to the British forces. Nobody has, and nobody will be, convicted for anything other than causing a riot on Bloody Sunday.

Correct but the soldiers who killed those civilians apparantly did nothing wrong and were, in fact, honoured for their deeds

constitutionus

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Correct but the soldiers who killed those civilians apparantly did nothing wrong and were, in fact, honoured for their deeds

in fact if memory serves the head guy in bloody sundy is now in charge of the brittish forces in iraq

Time Magazine

constitutionus wrote:

WHEN THE **** WAS I TALKING TO YOU!:mad:

He wasn't being bigoted in what he said. When talking about SF, bigot usually means someone who is essentially racist for the Unionist cause - personified in Big Iain. There was nothing bigotted said.

and if you think being white and catholic means you cant be a biggot then YOUR the one who needs to grow up

No, I don't think that. But it's far harder to be bigoted to SF when you are their demograph.

Dub wrote:

Correct but the soldiers who killed those civilians apparantly did nothing wrong and were, in fact, honoured for their deeds

The IRA do the same, honour scum. I'm referring to the scum who kill gardaí and unarmed civilians (Irish or British), and were not castigated or expelled etc.

Cork

The big screaming lie in all of this is, of course, that false distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA. They are effectively one and the same, and the continued existence of the military wing of the provisional movement says all that needs to be said about its bona fides. Sinn Fein/IRA represents a criminal conspiracy against this state. It is immersed in crime, is engaged in intelligence gathering, may or may not have retained an armed capability, and remains wedded to its own interpretations of what constitutes a criminal act.

. The criminality of the IRA is the criminality of Sinn Fein: they are two heads of the same monster

Comment: Alan Ruddock: Sinn Fein and the IRA are two heads of the same monster

Correct but the soldiers who killed those civilians apparantly did nothing wrong and were, in fact, honoured for their deeds

A Dub in Glasgo - So murder of a garda cannot be condemned then?

Calina

constitutionus wrote:

THANK YOU . finally someone with a constructive comment instead of constantly bashing out old cliches.

dont misunderstand me , im voting SF NOT to get em in power but to increase their presence in the dail. i'd prefer if they were in opposition because thats where i think theyll do the most good (but wouldnt be surprised if they hooked up in a SF/FF gov). im SICK of people like rabbite and kenny telling me their "the opposition" and then doing deals to advance themselves WITH the government. honnestly LOOK at all the scandals that have happened over this government and WHOS been the one's uncovering it? the bloody socialist and the independants. where the hell was LABOUR over gamma ? what happened to enda kenny FOR TWO MONTHS with the rossport 5 affair?
im as cynical as yourself , but i reckon SF is hungry enough to actually still do their job and listen to their grassroots. labour FF and FG left them long ago for the horsey set.

your right though , 20 years from now they'll probably be the same as FF. but thats 20 years we have before we have to look for someone else:)

I think you misunderstand me, but first, could you please learn to use either the bold or italics tags. I'm afraid I find the constant text shouting (capitals) annoying, and it doesn't make me that willing to engage with you.

Thank you in advance.

That you find my comments constructive is good, however, I think you have drawn some conclusions incorrectly. At no point have I suggested that in twenty years they'll be just like Fianna Fáil. I think it's a naive position to take, to be honest with you and based on such policies as they are spinning at the moment, I think it's unlikely, even if they can get shot of the private unaccountable guerilla army stigma. Fianna Fáil may well be centre left, and it's an identifiable position. Sinn Féin, once you get past the united Ireland stuff, are extreme left, and I find it to be as laudable a position as extreme right, to be honest. Just so that we are clear - by that I mean extremism is bad.

Making assumptions about people's views is dangerous. For example, I strongly suspect that Sinn Féin's support of the Rossport Five has less to do with concern for the Rossport Five, and more to do with a bit of electioneering. Not only that, it would be naive to assume that everyone in this country agrees with the position of the Rossport Five when a significant number of people in Mayo already don't. In other words, I don't find anything to praise Sinn Féin with in that case, although, clearly you see it as proof of how good they are.

The fact that they are a soi-disant socialist party does not, to my mind, allow them to hang off the coat-tails of the Socialist Worker Party, or the independents, incidentally. And for the record I'm rightly annoyed with my local SWP councillor for a number of reasons, unrelated to the debate at hand.

I don't, as it happens, think you're anything near as cynical as I am. If you were, you wouldn't pushing the position you are pushing, namely, an alternative for alternative's sake. Change for the sake of change. It's not a credible position. Ultimately, Sinn Féin's economic policies are, in my view, totally insane, some of their social policies, particularly on abortion IIRC, are rather fluid, their representatives do not appear to have the right to voice views diverging in any way from the party line, and they don't appear to fully respect the institutions of this State at all.

Not only that, as long as Sinn Féin continue to demand that MPs elected to Westminster in the North are allowed to take seats or speak in the Dáil, I will not, under any circumstances, entertain the idea of actually voting for them. I do not want to see them have a greater presence in the Dáil, certainly not until the current crop of Sinn Féin leaders are a generation replaced, if even then.

constitutionus

Calina wrote:

Making assumptions about people's views is dangerous. For example, I strongly suspect that Sinn Féin's support of the Rossport Five has less to do with concern for the Rossport Five, and more to do with a bit of electioneering. Not only that, it would be naive to assume that everyone in this country agrees with the position of the Rossport Five when a significant number of people in Mayo already don't. In other words, I don't find anything to praise Sinn Féin with in that case, although, clearly you see it as proof of how good they are.

my comments on the rossport 5 werent about praising SFs or my view on em, only about how enda handled the affair, i mean it was the main issue of his constituancy and he fumbled it . and labour were meant to support workers but failed the gamma workers in that regard. my comments were more a condemnation of the respective parties than a view that SF would save us from it:D by nature im a floating voter, the thread was "why vote sinn fein" and these were my reasons

calina wrote:

I don't, as it happens, think you're anything near as cynical as I am. If you were, you wouldn't pushing the position you are pushing, namely, an alternative for alternative's sake. Change for the sake of change. It's not a credible position. Ultimately, Sinn Féin's economic policies are, in my view, totally insane, some of their social policies, particularly on abortion IIRC, are rather fluid,

when did i say i wanted change for change's sake? that seems to be the FG/LABOUR position. i just want a genuine opposition that voices a view thats actually different. if theyre policies are nuts thats a personal perspective weather they get into power or not depends on bertie and i just dont see that happening (although you never know)


i didtnt mean to imply you agreed with me. i was putting forward my reasons for voting SF not what i assume was yours. what i meant about you being right was my own cynical view of how politics works in this country and how in the end we are talking about politicians:D .sooner or later theyll hit the middlground

constitutionus

Angry Banana wrote:

He wasn't being bigoted in what he said. When talking about SF, bigot usually means someone who is essentially racist for the Unionist cause - personified in Big Iain. There was nothing bigotted said.

so "vile sub human scum" is a term on endearment is it,i seem to remember hitler saying the same thing about the jews . bigotry is about lumping EVERYONE in the same basket. and hes done this to everyone connected to SF . most people in that organisation werent in the IRA and never would have been. my comment on bigotry was aimed at him not you yet you felt the need to butt in and start slagging me off

A Dub in Glasgo

Angry Banana wrote:

He wasn't being bigoted in what he said. When talking about SF, bigot usually means someone who is essentially racist for the Unionist cause - personified in Big Iain. There was nothing bigotted said.

Bigot = a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

If you call a section of the population scum and sub human scum, is that bigotry?

The IRA do the same, honour scum. I'm referring to the scum who kill gardaí and unarmed civilians (Irish or British), and were not castigated or expelled etc.

Slight difference and it may come a a massive surprise: The IRA carried out illegal acts, the soldiers on bloody Sunday apparantly did not. It is an easy one to miss though.

A Dub in Glasgo

Cork wrote:

A Dub in Glasgo - So murder of a garda cannot be condemned then?

Of course it can

Cork

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Of course it can

But SF representatives consistantly refuse to condemn the murder of a Garda.

Who (if any) in SF had prior knowledge of the raid?

The_Minister

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The IRA carried out illegal acts

Not according to the IRA. (or SF)

The_Minister

Angry Banana wrote:

The Artists' Exemption policy only came about after Fine Gael left power in 1997. It first arose around 2003.
.

Nice try. Haughey introduced it in 1969. Fine Gael never made a peep when it was in government.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Slight difference and it may come a a massive surprise: The IRA carried out illegal acts, the soldiers on bloody Sunday apparantly did not. It is an easy one to miss though.

It is indeed a sad reflection that a government can authorise its army to kill or ok it after the fact and its legal whilst the IRA did the same and it's illegal.

Both amount to the same thing.I'd suspect though that if the British Army did a bloody sunday style shoot out in 2006,there would be arrests,tribunals and stern action.In the light of what the papers have done to shame Army Iraq brutality into being dealt with,I'd imagine this would also happen in the North now.
I'm hopefull and glad that times have changed in that respect.

Incidently(and I'm not taking a position here ,just asking a question) but whats the difference between on the run (OTR's) who have never been tried and who are looking for regularisation and those behind Bloody sunday who also have never been tried.
Other than the British Army were "absolved" as a matter of course.
I know that was wrong but the question I am asking is do you see any difference in allowing OTRS to go free without trial and those who got the same earlier with Bloody sunday?
There seems to be an equivalance there albeit to borrow a term from animal farm some are more equivalent than others in that they(The GB Army) got swept under the carpet with air brushed innocence immediately.

This is a slightly OT question but relevant I suppose as OTR regularisation would be a SF priority

ivan087

Earthman wrote:

It is indeed a sad reflection that a government can authorise its army to kill or ok it after the fact and its legal whilst the IRA did the same and it's illegal.

Governments = elected
IRA = unelected

as simple as that:)

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Correct but the soldiers who killed those civilians apparantly did nothing wrong and were, in fact, honoured for their deeds

Which i think most people (most Irish people) would agree is a bad thing.

So whats the difference?

I always think it is funny to see SF/IRA supporters going on about how much a crime Bloody Sunday was (which of course it was), but then seem perfectly happy to justify the actions of the IRA which are on an equal level with Bloody Sunday.

If you don't support the actions of the British Army on Bloody Sunday, how can you then justify the actions of the IRA??

Time Magazine

Firespinner wrote:

Nice try. Haughey introduced it in 1969. Fine Gael never made a peep when it was in government.

You mis-interpreted my post. The recent FG policy on the exemption came about 2003. They haven't been in govt since it became an issue.

The_Minister

Angry Banana wrote:

You mis-interpreted my post. The recent FG policy on the exemption came about 2003. They haven't been in govt since it became an issue.

So they waited until they could get votes from it..........

Sorry for the misunderstanding of the other post.

ISAW

Firespinner wrote:

Not according to the IRA. (or SF)

Wrong! In 1985 SF decided to recognise Leinster house. this came about with a parallel takeover of SF by Adams and a northern group.

Ten years earlier (1972) Adams was taken out of gaol to negotiate on behalf of prisioners. The other person taken out was Dathai O Conaill I believe.

O Connall appeared on 13 June 1972, he appeared at an IRA press conference in Derry, along with Seán Mac Stiofáin, Seamus Twomey and ***Martin McGuinness,***. Mc Guinness has since admitted being a senior IRA figure in the past but claims he has since left the IRA.

Since then SF have talked to their friends in the IRA and got them to declare a ceasefire and ultimately to decommission weapons.

So the links between SF and the IRA are there to see and have supporting evidence and for most of their history SF did NOT recognise Leinster House the Irish Army the Courts or the Gardai. The IRA still don't!

ISAW

Firespinner wrote:

So they waited until they could get votes from it..........

Sorry for the misunderstanding of the other post.

Haughey brought the Artist tax exemption in decades ago. He also brought in the no tax on blood stack. FG have been in government since then. Indeed some of their ministers from that time are turf accountants I believe! FG did nothing about it when they were last in government. Not that it is a really important issue. I happen to agree with the principle. Maybe we should cut tax for sportsmen as well or for jockies rather than owners. Mind you personal taxation has never been so low so I cant see FG gaining any votes by taxing horses and artists. Nor would FF or the PDs lose huge amounts of votes by abolishing it.

ivan087

ISAW wrote:

So the links between SF and the IRA are there to see and have supporting evidence and for most of their history SF did NOT recognise Leinster House the Irish Army the Courts or the Gardai. The IRA still don't!

SF dont even recognise the murder of a Garda! imagine if SF got into government and had a minister for justice!!! actually - imagine a SF comerade as a minister for finance:D, or the minister for defence:(
oh the horror:eek:

constitutionus

ivan087 wrote:

Governments = elected
IRA = unelected

as simple as that:)

your right of course. now apply that to the IRA in the 1920s

weather you like it or not ALL governments and states are born in blood. you'll be voting in 17 months for parties who draw their power from the slaughter of british and irish citizens in the early part of the 20th century and theres no getting out of that.

makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesnt it:D

ivan087

constitutionus wrote:

your right of course. now apply that to the IRA in the 1920s

weather you like it or not ALL governments and states are born in blood. you'll be voting in 17 months for parties who draw their power from the slaughter of british and irish citizens in the early part of the 20th century and theres no getting out of that.

makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesnt it:D

your dead right, that is how our state was born - is it the way that we continue to live. SF's current MPs/MEPs/TDs/MLAs (SF must have a record for belonging to the most parliaments!) still have blood on their hands.

ISAW

constitutionus wrote:

your right of course. now apply that to the IRA in the 1920s

...and the conclusion is that the IRA of 1916 were not popular in the uprising nor were they widely supported!

Which is in fact correct!

But in spite of being anachronistic to compare a time when women didn't have the vote and many nationalists were prepared to fight in the British Army, it is true to say that the SF of today are no more like the SF of 1920 than FF are like them.

In fact it was the treatment of the 1916 leaders which made them (and their cause) popular. This forced the War of Independence. If you mean post independence Ireland then you are in more anachronistic territory. One can question the constitutionality of Ireland up to 1937. Republicans had a problem with the oath and the like but most of them had acquiesed by 1928. Indeed Dev might have done it earlier had it not been for some cumann na mban leaders. Anyway it took dev five years to move over to constitutional politics and get in and change the oath and other bits his people didnt like.

It took SF 65 years and even then the IRA were active for another 15 years.

weather you like it or not ALL governments and states are born in blood.

this just in not necessarily true. India was born in passive resistance. The current government of ireland and current state was not "born in blood". It was ratafied by plebcite
in 1937. The Vatican state was not born in blood. It was gifted by Italy. To claim that political independence can only happen by shedding blood is completly bonkers! Indeed it is against current SF policy which favours constitutional politics over militarism!

You'll be voting in 17 months for parties who draw their power from the slaughter of british and irish citizens in the early part of the 20th century and theres no getting out of that.

makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesnt it:D

This is an anachronistic comparison! You may as well say you will be voting for a democracy founded in Greek Wars or in British Nobles demanding Magna Carta from the Monarch! Both are true but not really relevant in todays context.

Furthermore it wasnt only based on "slaughter2 as you claim. The Irish Parliamentary Party had been using politics for 50 years to get Home Rule. Over that time there hadnt been much in the way of "Bloodshed". Considering risings in 1530s 1550s-70s, 1594-1603, 1641, 1798 , 1800 and 1803 the political line ( although slow) had done something with bloodshed to win the Irish back some level of equal status with settlers.