Fun talk:George W. Bush

This article really isn't up to much, is it, or even especially funny? I enjoy the Patriot Act effect though.

This poem is composed entirely of actual quotes from George W. Bush. The quotes were arranged for aesthetic purposes by Washington Post writer Richard Thompson in 2002 during National Poetry Month...

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER by George W. Bush I think we all agree, the past is over. This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses. Rarely is the question asked Is our children learning? Will the highways of the Internet become more few? How many hands have I shaked? They misunderestimate me. I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity. I know that the human being and the fish can coexist. Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream. Put food on your family! Knock down the tollbooth! Vulcanize Society! Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher! DogP  15:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)


 * I find the article to be fairly amusing - after all, there's plenty of straight bio or deep criticism out there - so this is our SPOV special sauce. I like the poem, by the way. human  17:18, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Its time to move this article to the "joke" section so that we can have a proper and serious article on George W. Bush. Dbradley360 06:58, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think the latest chapter in the legend of Bush, where an Iraqi journalist expressed our views on dear Mr. (soon to be thankfully former) President quite successfully and eloquently, shall be added to this article. It deserves special mention. (Though it would have deserved an award if that shoe found its mark.) 88.241.155.51 06:40, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Fourth?
Please give a reference as to the existance of the fourth branch of government. --" 20:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * I'm sorry, sir. If you have to ask, you're not cleared to know. -- 20:55, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * Existence. (& Contr e a oversy while I'm on the subject) Me 21:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * Beware of subversive british speling. --" 21:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * Dick Cheney's more like the sixth branch of government, right behind the Media and the Lobbyists. --Gulik 23:57, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Goodbye W!
Just wanted to say it. --JJ4e I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot 23:08, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * And good fucking riddance. Thanks for opening the thread ;)  ħ uman  23:40, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * It's a big moment. You may or may not support Obama, but the thing is, the Bush Era ends. :) --JJ4e I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot 12:23, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Uncyclopedia?
Was most of this article lifted from there, or does it just happen to read as such? 16:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It may well be worth moving it to fun. -- 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's so much real shit on Bush, we could don't need all the 'funny' crap.  I'm sure RW could produce a really good article highlighting just what an awful person and useless president W is/was.   16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a little too UC. It's worth moving to fun, any volunteers to write the proper article? 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So after this has been in the mainspace forever, in one day we move it to "fun"? This article may "look" like UC, but it's damn serious parody.  Moving back.  10:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When this gets moved back again in a typical RW pissing contest, whoever moves it can fix the redirects this time... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we run a bot from time to time automatically to fix the double redirects. In any case, you don't have to do it manually (unless you suffer from editcountitis of course :) )
 * I agree this should be in Funspace. It's a lame Unc knockoff. The topic deserves a proper article. -- Nx  / talk 11:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah - I didn't know that. Good idea. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'd love to scream "WHY ARE YOU BREAKING MY WIKI!!" or what-the-fuck-ever, but the fact is that RW's articles are considerably better than they used to be. Therefore higher standards are demanded of the mainspace. 11:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it true
That Bush once went to Spain and told: "Hey... they speak Mexican language here" ? --Earthland (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. -- 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard it on Russian television.... --Earthland (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And there's something here. --Earthland (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

redirects
I used my bot to fix double redirects, however some of them should be changed back to point to the mainspace article once there is one (e.g. Dubya) -- Nx  / talk 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we discuss before moving something to fun that has been in the mainspace for ages? 20:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, wasn't me, though I agree with the move, and there were quite a few other double redirects anyway. -- Nx  / talk 20:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Twas Onion. I think it would make more sense to improve it than to arbitrarily move it.  I gave it a quick skim, and it's very much an RW article. It also has a lot of fcats and stuff in it, although they are all "redacted"...  20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is it looks like an uncyclopedia reject. -- Nx  / talk 20:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was discussed above, and Human was the only one who thought it deserved to be in mainspace. I think it is far too down the 'lulz'/Uncyclopedia route to be edited to mainspace standards, and thus it is better to put this in fun and start from scratch on a proper article.  This guy is such a tool, a deadly serious article about him could be chilling and hilarious in equal measure.  20:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how good my memory is. At least I'm consistent. -- Nx  / talk 20:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)DeltaStar moved it, not me, but I think that it's to disorganized and uncyclopedian for the mainspace right now. -- 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disorganisation just means it needs work. What it needs is less "blackout" jokes (once is enough, really).  There's a lot in this article, it's just all blacked out.  Have either of you actually read what is behind all the CIA censorship in it?  01:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)