From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, Ed Poor! I wanted to ask you about the examples you deleted. I understand the last one is unsourced (but easily verifiable). However, the third one ("If you want to help, give cash money to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army") had an undisputable source. Why did you delete it, exactly? -Aralin 15:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you could explain how it's a Bushism, for those of us who are a little slow? HelpJazz 16:03, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure, and sorry. It is redundant, that is, more than is needed, desired or required. Repetitive, verbose, superfluous, tautologous. -Aralin 16:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
I know what redundant means, thanks.... Are you trying to say that it's a Bushism because he said "cash money"? That seems to be the only redundant part, and it's not exactly a made up phrase. Or am I missing something?
By the way, I agree with you on "misunderestimate;" it's easily the most famous Bushism. HelpJazz 16:36, 9 October 2007 (EDT)



Jenkins, you have completely distorted this article. By general consensus, a Bushism is a word or a phrase misspelled or incoherently said by George W. Bush. I know he has many virtues, but he's not the Great Communicator, like President Reagan was, or at least plain spoken. -Aralin 16:46, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

...*blinks* I'm sorry, should I put back the statement that Bush stated that liberals think that every misused word is a Bushism? Or should I put back the stuff about the truth most likely being that liberals are meanie poopie heads who are biased against Bush? I'm willing to discuss, but as a disclaimer, I think Bush makes more slip-ups than most others and that it's not just liberal bias. I'm merely trying to bring the article away from pure opinion without being reverted for being too liberal.
If you tell me which section is too pro-Bush, I'll gladly help to improve it! --Jenkins 16:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
I give up. I guess I'll be banned before I'll say more about this. --Aralin 08:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
You know, the thing that makes me the most aggravated here is that I'm among the last people on this entire site to discourage open communication. I got blocked myself quite a few times now for talk page things, so trust me, we're pretty much on the same side.
As such, I'm also fairly amused that you seem to think I'm too conservative or even a Bush-lover. A short time after you made the initial post, somebody else called me a deceitful liberal.
Anyway. I'll go through the phrases I changed and explain my reasoning:
  • Bushism is the term coined by liberals to refer to any word or phrase that they think is either (1) incoherent, (2) misspelled, or (3) idiotic, as stated by George W. Bush.
    • Aside from neutral word-changing to fit the flow, I only restructured it. The "as stated by GWB" at the end of the sentence gave me the impression that it refers to the statement of the sentence so far (that it's an expression coined by liberals) instead of what it should refer to (the phrases themselves).
  • The implication is that Bush mangles the language significantly more than other politicians.
    • This is nothing more than highly suggestive interpretation without a source. Sort of like saying "X said Y, hoping to trick Z into doing something" while only giving a source for the "X said Y" part. I reworded it slightly to avoid the "implication is" part.
  • The truth is more likely that the liberal media gleefully collect and publicize his verbal gaffes disproportionately.
    • I could have changed it to "The truth more likely is that GWB has the IQ of toast," and it would have followed the commandments exactly as much as the original sentence: Not at all. Unsourced speculation about truth, combined with bold claims and accusations that are practically impossible to prove, should generally be avoided. I replaced it with the fairly uncontroversial claim that everybody occasionally screws up, and an explanation attempt about Bush maybe being in the spotlight more often because he's... well... more often in the spotlight in general.
Yes, it's unsourced. Yes, it's still part speculation (however, the claims are not as bold as before and less controversial in my eyes). No, I wouldn't mind at all if somebody removed the entire second paragraph. As a matter of fact, I would've removed the entire paragraph myself, but I didn't want to provoke an edit war.
As far as I am aware, there is no reliable source discussing why we have the term "Bushism", but not "Putinism", "Merkelism", "Clintonism", or whatever else. If we actually enforced the "Must source stuff like that, yo!" commandment, the entire non-example part of the article (both the version we have now and the version I edited) would have to be nuked. There are sources that confirm that the term exists, and there are sources that describe what the term refers to, but that's it, from what I know. Even the "coined by liberals" part is unsourced speculation right now.
We can speculate that it's because Bush's an idiot, we can speculate that it's because the Evil Liberal Media hypes it, or we can speculate that Bush is in fact an Alien clone with a broken language module. I tried to tone done the accusation without stirring the waters too much. If you think you can do better, be my guest. I most likely won't stop you. --Jenkins 12:59, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you very much :) Aralin 14:55, 10 October 2007 (EDT)


Can someone please explain to me why cataloging Bush's mistakes is liberal bias and deciet, while you all have pages of mistakes that Obama makes? isn't that a bit of a double standard?


George W. Bush is the siting United States President and should be treated with respect. That's why. -Patriot1505

If Obama is elected should he be treated with the same respect? FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 16:42, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry Ferno, but you sound like a liberal, you should read the article on Liberal Hypocrisy. JamesRa 16:49, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
I've read it, I wasn't impressed. I think my question applies to both sides of the political spectrum. The Right defends Bush and the Left defended Bill Clinton with the same reason; "He deserves our respect because he is the president". FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 16:54, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

If Obama is elected, and that is a big IF, then I would say depending on his behavior he should be respected as well. Clinton did things to disrespect and fowl the office of President so his criticism was warranted. President Bush has not done anything immoral or otherwise to deserve disrespect from his citizens. -Patriot1505

A possible explanation...

The page says: "A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.". Isn't that just speculation? Should it really be a part of a fact page? Also, why isn't the classic "They misunderestimated me" on it? It kinda sums up what a Bushism is.

An opinion

My belief is that most if not all of these so-called 'Bushisms' are examples of self-deprecating humour by a very intelligent man. The tone of this article is unpleasant and mocking - if it is allowed to remain, it should only be to show how Liberals deliberately or through mental incapacity do not understand the concept self-deprecation (it's nor surprise that so many of them are puffed up with self regard), and are apt to misuse such sayings to attack the originator. MauriceB 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)

He has never said that his own comments' were made to amuse. The general feeling is that he's making mistakes when he makes speeches. Besides; it would not be fitting for a man in his powerful position to make "bad jokes". It would be very unappropriate. As regards to the unpleasant an mocking tone; I think it's fitting since he makes mistakes which someone who is as well educated as he is simply should not make.09:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)


This article is an example of mockery and should be deleted. --Brendanw 00:23, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Bushisms' are a big part of George Bush and not mentioning them would be to deny something about the man. Whether you like it or not, this is something alot of people connect with George Bush. Even if you voted for him and liked him as a president, people should see that he wasn't flawless.

For now the article remains. Do not undo my deletion of the "speedy" tag. AddisonDM 22:54, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Personal tools