[Syncro]

Rush did a good job of naming this bill (from above):

“You could call this the ‘porkulus,’” said Limbaugh. “Right,” laughed Cantor. “Let me tell you something: it is porkulus. That’s a great description.”

From Washington, DC, to California; from Canada to South Africa and Qatar the world knows that this "stimulus" bill is nothing more than the democrats plan to feed themselves and their friends and buy votes.

WTG Rush!

[Bhoy]

I thought Google was in bed with Mr O. ?

[sfimom]

LOL just a few hits from yahoo search as well...

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=porkulus&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2

[kittycatonline.com]

Try to pull up the wikipedia result for “porkulus”. You get a “This page has been deleted.” Care to guess if the owner(s) of Wikipedia are Obama sycophants?

[NormsRevenge]

2009 ways to serve Porkulus
by Barak Hussein Obama

Foreword from the socialists and moderates of the US Congre$$

Introduction by Nanny Pelosi and Harry Reid

[shoptalk]

Ha! Wikipedia briefly had an entry for *porkulus*. Here's the discussion leading to its deletion:

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Porkulus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Jump to: navigation, search

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) [edit] Porkulus

Porkulus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Protologism with little to no assertion of notability. XenocideTalk|Contributions 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete Neologism, no reliable sources found on google web search, so it's non-notable Pattont/c 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source (Wall Street Journal) is in the references section. Because it is a neologism, it is timely right now. Should it fade from use without historical import, it would be appropriate to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 21:53, February 1, 2009

That's not a reference, the word was used once in a newspaper article, it's not an article about the term.--Pattont/c 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The references establish the usage and definition of the term. —Gustnado (talk contribs) 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is, however, trivial coverage (Ty whoevr fixed the double AfD)--Pattont/c 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is, however, the precise defining coverage.--Gustnado (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. Other than the fact that someone called the package "porkulus", it does not contribute to our knowledge of the subject. GregorB (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It contributes to our knowledge of political humor and commentary. It is not meant to contribute to our knowledge of the legislation. comment added by Gustnado (talkcontribs) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable neologism. --Peephole (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Protologism. Should it become widely used in the future, article may be recreated. . ¨¨ victor falk 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice. Just because a word is created in an opinion piece doesn't make it notable. Will Beback talk 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that and I created the page. (oops, forget to log in)--Gustnado (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This 'word' has only just been used for the first time, is an expression of one particular point of view on a topic with an existing article, and is treated here by way of a dictionary definition. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable protologism. (WP:NEO) — neuro(talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page

[Colonial Warrior]

The new American in Obamalot....

[sockmonkey]

AT 11:44pm CST, a google for Porkulus reads:
Results 1 - 10 of about 60,300 for porkulus.

[rfp1234]

BTW, porculus is a real word; it means "SMALL pig" in Latin. A mere 1 trillion dollar piglet. Just wait till the Pelosicrats come up with a really BIG pork bill....

[Mojave]

Plus 14,800 web references posted over the past 24 hours for the term “Porkulus” according to Google Advanced Search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=porkulus&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=d&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

[Hildy]

Anyone have that video of when Obama said “you can’t put lipstick on a pig? and everyone thought he was referring to Sarah? takes on a whole new meaning now, doesn’t it?

[Islander7]

[omega4179]

What do you think SPENDING IS? its PORKULUS /zero rant off

[2harddrive]

STOP Porkulus Maximus!

[Matchett-PI]

Rush was the first to use the word “porkulus” to describe Obama’s bill. He used it on his radio show for the first time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009. Cantor was on his show the next day, and Rush wrote his article for the WSJ the day after that. See the time line below:

Rush: Pearl of Wisdom: “If you look at the details of what’s in this porkulus plan, very little of it is stimulating. It’s just pork. It’s the Democrats paying back unions and the people that got ‘em elected. There’s $4.19b for ‘neighborhood stabilization.’ That means voter fraud. That’s ACORN.” Tue, 27 Jan 2009

Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) calls to discuss the Obama Porkulus bill. It was just last month that Obama promised that this bill wouldn’t be full of pork. (Rush 24/7 Members: Listen Here) Wed, 28 Jan 2009

“My Bipartisan Stimulus”. ~ by Rush Limbauagh
The Wall Streed Journal. January 29,2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html