Why vote Sinn Fein?

ISAW

Diorraing wrote:

FF did bomb and kill people to achieve their aims during the civil war.

No they didnt! FF didnt exiast until 1928 at least five years [b[]after[/b] the civil War. REpublican people who later became members of FF and who were then members of SF did kill people in the civil war. As for Bombing I cant recall REpublicans bombing people. The Free State forces certainly did shell the four Courts however. They also ties several Republicans (four or five) to a log in county Kerry and threw a bomb at them from a distance. One survived to crawl away and later become a TD ( Stack I think his name was) Dan Spring later took the seat from him.

They were accepted into mainstream politics 10 years later (and yes it was the generation that were members of an illegal army).

No they were not! It took Dev and other constitutional Republicans about five years to switch. Four years later they were not just accepted into the mainstream they were the mainstream since they were in government by 1932! SF however took until 1985 to announce constitutional politics and by 2005 were still not in governmnet!

As I've said many times before on Boards it is Sinn Féin's 30% Corporation Tax policy that is insane.

their policies are difficult to find but invariably badly worked out with the hint of outdated Marxist economics.

The IRA are gone (according to the IMC only a few thugs are active and not on the orders of the IRA). It is also apparent that SF want a "united Ireland in a democratic" otherwise they wouldn't have given away their guns.
It is so easy to attack SF on their economic policies, why do you persist on using this washed-up, pointless argument that "Sinn Fein are all thugs"? They are clearly exteremly clever political masterminds that thrive on stupid arguments like yours!

I agree about their lack of policy. I disagree that they are all masterminds or all thugs. But it is important when all other parties do not have access to a private army which does not recognise the State and indulges in anti state activities.

Time Magazine

ISAW wrote:

3. State violence is always justified - mind you the opposite is most likely true - violence by non state forces is never justified.

Sorry for bringing up der Deutcshe again, but Count Klaus von Stauffenberg anyone?

Mick Collins, before he was elected?

ISAW, what about The Phil and that rogue Junior Dean? .

I think there are certainly cases where non-State forces are legitimate in using force - and not even only in the case of violence by the State themselves. If, for example, France started imprisoning all brown-haired women - would there be justification in Bastilles Part Duex? I think so.

I think the only way to generalise where force is acceptable is with a proportionately general statement: where the actions of the State extend beyond its own natural right/morality.

But ooh there's a dilly of a pickle. Many people, particulary in today's society, don't believe in morals. What, then, can justify invasion of a democratic state?

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

So you admit that its a glib turn of phrase and scraping at its surface for just moment by asking you to consider; is there a world of diference between a police officer shooting someone who is commiting a robbery and a terrorist commiting a robbery and shooting a police officer? The answer is yes, so to use this as a justification for IRA terrorism is horsemanure.

I'm not trying to justify anything i'm just pointing out that this would be the standard for judging an effective state.
If you are a rapist can I lock you in a room for years? No.
Can the state? Yes?

The state even determines what is self-defence.

This is where your "world of difference" comes from.

PS:The full definition actually ends with "...against legally unarmed civilians". Forgot that bit.

Freelancer wrote:

Does that prove it is the most widely accepted definition of a state?

It would be one of the most widely quoted and, yes, accepted. It is not exhaustive though

Guys back on topic or this thread will be locked.
Second and Final warning

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I'm not trying to justify anything i'm just pointing out that this would be the standard for judging an effective state.
If you are a rapist can I lock you in a room for years? No.
Can the state? Yes?

The state even determines what is self-defence.

This is where your "world of difference" comes from.

PS:The full definition actually ends with "...against legally unarmed civilians". Forgot that bit.

So you admit theres a world of difference between a states actions and a terrorist organisation so the above cannot be used as justification of the IRAs campaign and is nothing more than a bit of ponficating on your part?

It would be one of the most widely quoted and, yes, excepted. It is not exhaustive though

excepted? or accepted?
:rolleyes:

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

So you admit theres a world of difference between a states actions and a terrorist organisation so the above cannot be used as justification of the IRAs campaign and is nothing more than a bit of ponficating on your part?:

I never said there wasn't a difference! That definition is the basic difference. I never was justifying the IRA (or pontificating)

Freelancer wrote:

excepted? or accepted?

Accepted.


To get back on topic people vote SF because they are good on the ground more than anything else.

ivan087

Firespinner wrote:

To get back on topic people vote SF because they are good on the ground more than anything else.

yeah - they never did have a navy or an air force

The_Minister

ivan087 wrote:

yeah - they never did have a navy or an air force

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I never said there wasn't a difference! That definition is the basic difference. I never was justifying the IRA (or pontificating)

Why raise it, unless you were ponficating, what greater point where you trying to make?

Accepted.

You said it was the most widely accepted definition of a state you've not proven that one iota.

To get back on topic people vote SF because they are good on the ground more than anything else.

Where exactly what examples do you offer, or is this something else that is "widely accepted?"

The_Minister

I have the strange feeling that if I said the sky is blue id need quotes to back it up......

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

Why raise it, unless you were ponficating, what greater point where you trying to make?

I was jusst trying to contribute to the mini-discussion taking place in this thread about why state violence was different.

Freelancer wrote:

You said it was the most widely accepted definition of a state you've not proven that one iota.

ONE of the most accepted. I think the number of prestigeous political writings and institutions that use the definition speaks for itself.

Freelancer wrote:

Where exactly what examples do you offer, or is this something else that is "widely accepted"?

Yes, its widely accepted they are known to be able to beat any political party when it comes to ground work.

Firespinner

Firespinner wrote:

Yes, its widely accepted they are known to be able to beat any political party when it comes to ground work.

In certain areas though and to a certain demographic.
If they were able to appeal and do the same ground work to a wider demographic,they'd have much more than 9% in the polls.
Most of the countries voters still depend on the 3 main parties.

The_Minister

Earthman wrote:

In certain areas though and to a certain demographic.
If they were able to appeal and do the same ground work to a wider demographic,they'd have much more than 9% in the polls.
Most of the countries voters still depend on the 3 main parties.

Correct but they are notibly more efficient at the ground work than the other 3. The snob in wants to say that because they are all unemployed and don't do anything else.
I'd attribute alot of their 9% to their groundwork.

dlofnep

I vote for them because they are the only party with the balls to continue to press a United Ireland. What suprises me is the amount of people these days that don't care about the history of our country and the amount that they let the British government get away with.

You may aswell support Hitler's vision for world control seen as some of you are content with the fact that Northern Ireland was blatantly planted, segregated and taken from the people of Ireland.

Sinn Fein might not have a clean plate, but who does these days? I don't see Gerry Adams going around bombing people. All I see is continous compliance from the IRA in support of a peaceful Unification of Ireland. If you wish to continue to associate splinter groups with Sinn Fein then you are as ignorant as the next.

The_Minister

dlofnep wrote:

I vote for them because they are the only party with the balls to continue to press a United Ireland. What suprises me is the amount of people these days that don't care about the history of our country and the amount that they let the British government get away with.

You may aswell support Hitler's vision for world control seen as some of you are content with the fact that Northern Ireland was blatantly planted, segregated and taken from the people of Ireland.

Sinn Fein might not have a clean plate, but who does these days? I don't see Gerry Adams going around bombing people. All I see is continous compliance from the IRA in support of a peaceful Unification of Ireland. If you wish to continue to associate splinter groups with Sinn Fein then you are as ignorant as the next.

You mean they are the only party who want Northern Ireland to rejoin Ireland before the people of northern ireland democratically decide that they want to.

Zombrex

dlofnep wrote:

as some of you are content with the fact that Northern Ireland was blatantly planted, segregated and taken from the people of Ireland.

When I was 10 my bike got stolen by a bully down the road. Thats was 16 years ago, the bully is now driving a van for Tescos, is married and has 2 kids. I pass him once and a while, always say "hows it going".

Point being, I got over it, I don't live my life in constant anger over something that I can barely remember happening.

The simple fact is that the people alive when N.I was planted are dead. They have been dead for the last 300 years.

The people who were alive when partition happened are probably dead, or well on their way.

There are still a load of people who lived through the 60s and 70s but I would imagine the last thing the majority want is a return to violence and terrorism.

So really, you have to ask yourself what do you want to happen? Is everyone in N.I suddenly going to be much much happier if a united Ireland happens? Are all their day to day problems just going to dissappear? Is it going to be sunny and bright instead of rainny and dark every day in winter?

I could go down and punch the guy in the face for stealling my bike 16 years ago, but it won't really achieve anything. It probably wouldn't even make me feel any better about my bike being stolen, not that I even care anymore.

I could steal his kids bike, but that won't achieve anything either.

I could get on with my future instead of obsessing about my past and trying to punish people for something that happened so long ago I don't even remember it.

Yes I think that would be the best course of action...

constitutionus

Earthman wrote:

In certain areas though and to a certain demographic.
If they were able to appeal and do the same ground work to a wider demographic,they'd have much more than 9% in the polls.
Most of the countries voters still depend on the 3 main parties.

which makes you wonder how well other parties would do if they had equal representation in loal politics countrywide?

i could see sinn fein doing really well down the country particularly if compared to say the PDs. i dont really see what demographic the PDs would attract outside urban and city areas whereas SF would attract disgruntled FF and FG votes. i also reckon the GREENS could probably garner a fair showing, in fact they'd probably do better down the country than concentrating on cities.
im not sure really but you got to admit its one of the exciting things about irish politics, its so mutable. i dont know how the yanks hack their two horse race:)

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I was jusst trying to contribute to the mini-discussion taking place in this thread about why state violence was different.

Many people offered specific insight into why they felt it was different you offered pithy one liners.

ONE of the most accepted. I think the number of prestigeous political writings and institutions that use the definition speaks for itself.

You said it was the most accepted. Now you're saying "one" of. You've not offered any evidence that anyone never mind a number of prestigeous political writing or institutions, use this defintion. More hot air.

Yes, its widely accepted they are known to be able to beat any political party when it comes to ground work.

Once again you've given scant information about what is "ground work" or an example of how SF excell at it.

I have the strange feeling that if I said the sky is blue id need quotes to back it up......

you statement as fact the onus on you is to support that "fact". You've not offered a single source to support your claims, yet you are whinging that you are being forced to support every claim. How about you start supporting statements, with facts, before you make such a complaint?

Time Magazine

What constitutes proof? Would a link to lectures notes of a Political Science class in Trinity College count?

If so: http://www.politics.tcd.ie/courses/undergrad/PO1600a/note.html
Go to Lecture 19.
View PowerPoint slide 8.

Also the Google search of "weber monopoly violence" returns 187,000 pages.

Freelancer

Angry Banana wrote:

What constitutes proof? Would a link to lectures notes of a Political Science class in Trinity College count?

If so: http://www.politics.tcd.ie/courses/undergrad/PO1600a/note.html
Go to Lecture 19.
View PowerPoint slide 8.

Also the Google search of "weber monopoly violence" returns 187,000 pages.

ANd if you type defintion of state?

I did this for two points, to arogantly define what is the accepted definition of a poltical state is, pure ego.

To to claim that this is the majority view is pure ego.

To claim that this is canon and not open to debate defeats the purpose of debate and this forum.

To arrogantly refuse to define the source and the argument is just lazy.

To define a politcal debate in this country to a round hole and force use to chisel the peg to fit it Is contemptable.

To define every nation, every state, every people with a one line glib statement belittles us all.

Firespinner never got that.

Speaking of Trinity courses.

This one has ran its course.

Locked.