Any post in which the intent is to make 'W' look 'good', shall get a downgrade. lol

*edit* Good joke gone bad *edit*

As a joke, funny.
That you actually did it, not funny.

Voting something down just because it does not match your political flavor is unplimeish!

Not that it really matters, but if I choose to down vote, it is my right as a 'plimer'. It is just your opinion that I should not do so. But thanks for the 'tip'.

Downvoting on all pro-W links because you're a democrat (or whatever) is uncool. Just like it would be uncool for Republican Plimers to downvote any site that made Hillary look good... assuming, of course, that you could find one.
It's not an 'opinion,' it's a character thing and it's what we do here. Perhaps you would find helpful voting information in the FAQ section.

I understand your point, but I don't care for 'W' as a person or a president. I was in the military for 6 years under 'W' and because of decisions he made, alot of my friends/brothers/sisters-in-arms were caused alot of pain and hardship and even death in quite a few cases, so if I decide to down vote a pro 'W' post, I will do so. It's not like a down vote is the same as me punching you in the face or killing your dog, so let's not dwell on the little things like voting and start getting some good posts on here. I mean, I come to the site to read some good news articles, not get harrassed aboot voting.

ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh.... someones getting his political panties in a twist

I'm Nutural on the Bush debate by the way.

Ironic post!

I agree that voting an article down because you do not agree with it's content is not the *intent* of Plime, but it is totally within Punthe's right to do so.

Here's the ironic bit: Punthe's comments were all downvoted... I assume because the downvoter didn't agree with Punthe's opinion. So I voted them back up. Ha! Democracy in action!

BTW, I find it funny that the only thing W fans can come up with is that his electric bill is lower than Al Gore's. Still a loser.

No, I think it is many members opinion that a story should not be down-voted because you simply disagree with the politics of it.
Here's another tip, if you think you may be offended by the story, don't click it.

Opinions are like...well, you know. Everybody has one.

So what is the point of a voting system exactly? If someone doesn't like the story for whatever reason, why shouldn't they vote it down? I don't think it's a matter of being offended or not. I dislike ALL politicians. Should I not read any political news? I am honestly at a loss to understand the arguments people are putting forward for not down-voting.

"When should I downvote a link/post/comment/thread?
Negative Votes can be applied when you find one of the above to be rude, insulting, spamming, or trolling. Articles that are not of interest to you should not be down voted. Comments that contradict your opinion should not be downvoted unless the comment is derogatory and/or offensive."

Try reading the FAQ. Lots of helpful information. This link takes you to page 3 of the thread, where a summery was posted.

Incidentally, I'm not trying to harass anyone. Just trying to help.

You don't like Bush as a person? You don't even know the man, so quit with the knee-jerk liberal-democrat programming on how you should think.

You claim he is responsible for injuries and deaths of your fellow service people.

First of all, let me thank you most humbly for your service to your country.

You should know that in any war there will be deaths and injuries. The lack of troops, the lack of equipment is not Bush's fault, it is Clinton's fault more than anyone else. He was the one who raped the military's budget and cut it to the bone. That is why there were insufficent numbers.

Also the American public probably wouldn't stomach the type of war that would have ended this earlier. A massive air-bombardment would have gone a long way towards cutting down on insurgents.

Also, we are talking about trying to unite people who have been fighting for thousands of years. No easy quick solution to this.

The only thing Bush did wrong in the war is to not properly convey the importance of the war, to not show the American people what and why he was doing. Bush is not a good communicator obviously.

To be prejudiced and vote down any post/comment just because you don't like the individual involved is no different than voting down any post that puts gays, African-Americans, Latinos, etc in a good light. If the post that put him in a good light was false, than there would be reason to vote it down possibly. To vote down a true article just because you have a thing against the president is foolish and childish as well as prejudicial.

The idea of voting down is not whether you approve of the post. I hate 99.99% of the gossip category, doesn't mean I should vote down evey one in there, possibly deleting it in the process.

Of course do as you please. Be racist, prejudiced, bigoted or whatever you want to do. Just don't expect eveyone or even most to agree with you.

I HEARTILY agree. I can't stand the neo-cons, but a GOOD LINK (something that you find 'important' enough to spend a little time with) is just that: a good link, and I beleive that's the purpose of pruning a 'tree'; to save the 'good links'...
PS Truth is Truth... accuracy is paramount, and censorship is couterproductive.

Well, Dang... that sure hit a nerve?

No more than any other bigoted, uneducated, prejudical statement would have.

Put the flames out, or I'll whip a big neg 19 on all of you. ; )

Back on topic, but didn't the majority of Al Gore's house energy come from environmentally friendly sources ? (I heard something like that, don't kill me if it is not true)

If you have a high energy bill, does not directly mean you ruin the environment.

Meh.

I stand corrected. I shall never down vote another post unless it is, in fact, rude, insulting, or spam. (Mainly because I don't want to have to go through another pissing match)

Agreed. I see my error, now.

To sholom22:

I appologise for the downvote. I see my error in the execution of my joke. Won't happen again!

P.S. I have revoted in an upvote.

Bush's ranch IS completely off the grid. It is energy efficient, completely self sustained.

2 questions come to mind:

Who originally built it this way?

Does Bush know something we don't know?


This man's history would indicate that he does NOT have this house to help the environment. He has habitually only helped himself. When things got bad, he begged others to bail him out.

But I think Neil would have been worse, given the S&L fiascos he presided over.