‘Game of Thrones’ Severed Bush Head a Giggle for Media
We hardly needed more proof of the cesspool that is original programming on the pay cable networks. But just in case: “Game of Thrones” producers D.B. Weiss and David Benioff have willingly admitted to using a gruesome image of former president George W. Bush’s head impaled on a stake during the HBO drama’s season one finale, “Fire and Blood.”
Bush’s decapitated likeness appeared as one in a row of traitors’ heads on spikes (implication much?) in King’s Landing. When King Joffrey forced his child bride-to-be Sansa to gaze upon her father’s bloody, severed head the camera panned out and revealed a beheaded Bush covered in dirt and draped in long, matted hair.
In the DVD commentary Weiss and Benioff snickered as they discussed the scene.
"The last head on the left is George Bush. George Bush's head appears in a couple of beheading scenes. It's not a choice, it's not a political statement. We just had to use whatever head we had around,” Benioff and Weiss said.
Right. But all the right people got the joke.
E Online smirked, saying, “the Republicans really didn’t like that.” HuffPo quipped “Who knew Joffrey was a Democrat?” Similarly, ABCNews joked, “It seems some members of the Republican Party aren’t fans of the Lannisters, either.”
“In the ‘Game of Thrones,’ you win or you die, and George W. Bush did the latter in the HBO series — by decapitation,” Politico’s Mackenzie Weinger sniffed.
Needless to say, if it were President Obama’s head on a spike, Democrats and the media would howl with rage, and demand that “Game of Thrones” be removed from the air (as they’ve done with conservative radio hosts).
Stay tuned to find out if “The View’s” Joy Behar, who recently said she wanted to see Mitt Romney’s house burn down, will weigh in on the situation.
“Game of Thrones” Season 1 was released on DVD in March before the second season premiere in April. The bloody, medieval drama has already come under fire by liberal and conservative critics for its appalling amount of nudity and gratuitous sex.
- Lauren Thompson's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
And were it Obama's head???
Submitted by CT on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:07am.
It would have been the end of the world.
This is appalling and a
Submitted by clancie on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:10am.
This is appalling and a public demonstration of the hate Liberals harbor. There is no legitimate 'excuse' for using a replicate head of the President. It was obviously done with with specificity. These people are full of themselves, political bigotry, arrogance and narcissism. Next time I'd like to see the severed heard of Barack Hussein "Kardashian" hoisted on a pole, for the sole purpose of hearing Democrats and Libs whine, cry and scream for a week.
Good points Clancie
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:37pm.
This is just one more, of too many examples to count, of the left epitomizing virtually every single thing they accuse conservatives of exhibiting. The rabid unreasoning hate, the lying, the hypocrisy, the racial and religious discrimination, the misogyny, the violence, the unthinking generalization of a political or philosophical belief, and the list goes on. Rarely, if ever, do conservatives actually do any of the things the left accuses us of, yet which they practice daily and publicly.
That's who these people are.
Submitted by mejay on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:11am.
Morally bankrupt and full of hatred for any and everything decent and truly praiseworthy. Nothing about this is funny or entertaining to anyone except the kind of sick person that would make it. Truly most liberals, like Joy Behar, are sick. And they know it. Somewhere deep inside, they know it.
Tasteless
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:14am.
No President of either party should be mocked that way.
It was no accident. That was a lie.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:17am.
They had to use "whatever was lying around"? Horse hockey. It was intentional and they know it.
Exactly
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:17pm.
Because I watched the series. The "woman" next to GWB is Septa Mordane, the teacher of the Stark family....and they also had Ned Stark's head on a spike.....so they took the time to ensure that these props matched the actors' faces.
So then we have the "lying around head". Riiight...it was exactly the right size. And if they didn't wish it to be recognized (of course they did....even if it wasn't politically motivated, they were going for trivia and buzz), they could have disguised it by lopping off the nose or something else....as torture of prisoners is a common theme.
Very sad, and totally predictable.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
And how, exactly
Submitted by panzerakc on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:46pm.
Does one just happen to have a head of Bush "lying around"?
The "New Civility"
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:39am.
Unreal.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
The production crew on an HBO
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:52am.
The production crew on an HBO show doesn't really have anything to do with "new civility." Honestly, no one would even know about this if they hadn't mentioned it (which was even dumber than using the head in the first place).
And before anyone gets all hot and bothered, I don't think this was appropriate to do. Bad idea. Even if the head can't be seen at all, you know it's going to get out that they used it, as we see that it has.
And, or course, you would've
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:03pm.
And, or course, you would've said the same thing if it were BHO instead of GWB? That it was dumber to have said anything than to have used the head in the first place? That it was "inappropriate," but only so far as that they would get caught and it would get out there that they used it, but the fact that they used it is perfectly legit?
And, of course, you missed
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 3:38pm.
And, of course, you missed the part where I said it was an inappropriate thing to do?
Bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:00pm.
You said it was the wrong thing to do, and added a "but", in the form of no one would have known about it if the producers hadn't brought it out in the open.
That doesn't excuse it, but it sounds as if you are trying to excuse it. You can't have it both ways.
Not excusing it. I can make
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:13pm.
Not excusing it. I can make an interesting point without invalidating my opinion that they shouldn't have done this.
Let me help you, balboa
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:34pm.
Is it not possible they put the "Bush on a stick", into the movie, only to realize somebody MIGHT NOT notice? And wouldn't it be even more "in your face" (but anally protective) if they decided to make mention after the movie that it's there (Look for it! We did it! And now we're going to really torque them off by saying it wasn't meant to be recognizeable)
Oh, yeah. Back to your comment. What was your "interesting point"?
What do you mean by "no one?"
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:45pm.
Bal, a lot of people knew about it. The entire cast and crew knew about it, as well as the producers who placed it there to begin with. The thing is, none of them cared, even though they knew it was an irresponsible thing to do. They though it was funny. They thought everyone else would think it was funny too, which is why they even bothered to comment upon it in the "commentary." They WANTED people to see it, to notice it, because they thought it was funny. That's why the called attention to it. They thought wrong though, didn't they?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
By "no one" I meant the
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:47pm.
By "no one" I meant the general public.
Ahh, but that's where you make your mistake.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:09pm.
Ahh, but that's where you make your mistake. It's obvious that the "general public" DID notice it, when it was first aired. It's obvious that at least a few people complained about it too. Otherwise, why would the producer try to explained why it was there when they were creating the DVD release, which was AFTER the episode in question had already been aired on HBO?
It's obvious what happened here: The producers included the Bush head in the scenes because he thought it would be funny. They even created it specifically for that episode. People noticed that it was Bush, and they complained. The producer, facing criticism, tried to cover his ass by claiming that it was just a head that was "lying around" and he need a head, so why not use it? But the damage had already been done and the complaints continued, so HBO decided to issue an apology and promised to delete the scene from any further releases, whether on the air or on DVD. So, it's obviously a lot bigger "deal' than you make it out to be.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
How is it obvious that people
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:09pm.
How is it obvious that people noticed it? I thought this was only discovered when they talked about it on the DVD commentary?
I don't think it's a big deal, but I don't think it's a small thing either. It's an inappropriate decision by all involved.
That's when we discovered it, Bal
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:19pm.
"How is it obvious that people noticed it?"
It's obvious because in the DVD "commentary", he was defending the inclusion of it in the episode, after the episode aired. SOMEONE must have noticed it when it first aired. SOMEONE must have questioned the motives behind using it. If they hadn't, he wouldn't have tried to defend his action later, after the episode originally aired and the DVD was being produced for release.
"I thought this was only discovered when they talked about it on the DVD commentary?"
No, that's only when WE discovered it.
You have to remember that the episode in question originally aired months ago. It was the last episode of Season One. The Season One DVD was only recently produced.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Bal
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:05pm.
In case you haven't noticed, Colininla is making a pretty good run at your position.
That post puts you back in front as Chief of Deniers.
We're all pullin' for ya' lad.
Where is Super Nanny, anyways?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:07pm.
I haven't sen Super Nanny posting her hypocritical criticisms yet toady. Is she on break?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I think bal tagged in
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:10pm.
It's like tag-team wrestling.
Of course if it happens they never appear in the same place together, an argument can be made . . .
What am I denying?
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:12pm.
What am I denying?
Kidding, right bal?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:26pm.
You're not really trying to turn a dribble-bunt into a double are you?
You already told us what you're denying,
I'm actually trying to
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:42pm.
I'm actually trying to convert a first - and - third into a go-ahead run in the bottom of the 5th of a twin bill.
Too bad
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 6:02pm.
Your drag bunt rolled foul while you were rounding 1st.
The production crew on an HBO
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:02pm.
The production crew on an HBO show doesn't really have anything to do with "new civility." Honestly, no one would even know about this if they hadn't mentioned it (which was even dumber than using the head in the first place). And before anyone gets all hot and bothered,I don't think this was appropriate to do. Bad idea. Even if the head can't be seen at all, you know it's going to get out that they used it, as we see that it has.There fixed it for you.
Isnt it great when these creeps
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 9:20pm.
Suddenly realize there is a backlash, for being a jerk.
You Liberals sure are touchy
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:22pm.
You Liberals sure are touchy when we Conservatives point out how your side does the things you accuse the Right of doing.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Not touchy. Just don't think
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:50pm.
Not touchy. Just don't think the concept of "new civility" of left vs. right is the issue here. The production crew might not care about any so-called new civility.
You admit they don't care about civility? Thanks Bal.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:02pm.
The Left raised the "civility" issue after the AZ shooting and we're so sorry to have to point our their hypocrisy.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
You raise a good point
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:10pm.
but it is unclear that anyone involved in the HBO production has made the claim that there needs to be this new "civility".
For all any of us know they are fully ok with violence rolling through the streets.
I think it is hard to hold the HBO production responsible for upholding the new civility that was called for by the Left in the wake of the Giffords shooting.
Is there any semblance of a new civility? Absolutely not. The Left has used this term as a sword against the Right.
But I don't think the whole civility issue even needs to come into play here as this matter is so beyond the pale. Depicting a president in that manner is wrong any way you cut it. There is no exception and no excuse.
Some amount of the production crew and the cast and the producers knew they where using a mask of President Bush. They were wrong. But holding them accountable because Paul Krugman, the White House, the Left, et al ran to make accusations that the Right is violent (when it is virtually always the left) doesn't result in holding this HBO production to that particular standard.
If you want to fault the White House for failing to condemn this as an example of what they were talking about in re: a new civility then I think that is fairer as they were the ones who argued for it.
The production crew of "Games
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:38pm.
The production crew of "Games of Throne" has what exactly to do with that? Did I miss an episode where they addressed the lack of civility from the right?
I don't know, bal
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:43pm.
Are you denying you did?
So they're implying George Bush
Submitted by dzejk113 on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:50am.
was with the Starks? I'm ok with that, the Starks are the good guys in the books and show, all about honor and doing the right thing no matter the cost. I'd say they accidentally gave Bush a kind of compliment by trying to insult him this way. And can you think of a better way to tweak those libs than to turn their "clever" insult into a compliment?
Thought the same thing
Submitted by RDD on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 12:35pm.
Thought the same thing too.
I'll have to watch that episode when I get home. All the screen grabs being posted don't even really show the face in question. I mean, if what's posted here is the best you see of the face, big woop. Bigger issues to worry about.
Here you go, RDD
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:43pm.
From the UK Daily Mail.....there are two good pictures of the "head" side by side w/ GWB. Tell me this wasn't on purpose....they could have done a thousand things differently to ensure that no one ever knew "they used what was on hand".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Ha, wow. That's literally
Submitted by RDD on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 6:04pm.
Ha, wow. That's literally it? I'm over it. :P
But it was the only head we had
Submitted by pockets64 on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:47am.
Their very lame excuse was that it was the only head they had?? We must certainly appreciate their efforts to be fiscally responsible, to use a prop they already had lying around!!
Now, I wonder why they had a severed head of a former president lying around.
It is laughable
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 12:42pm.
to suggest this was the only head they had laying around:
"...With the ambitious "Game of Thrones," spiraling costs are a risk. The reported budget for season one was about $60 million; costs increased by roughly 15% for season two, says Michael Lombardo, HBO's president of programming."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230340470457730943200801894...
So you had a budget of 60M for your first season and no one could run to one of those costume stores and pick up an extra mask or two?
Edit: But I would like clarification on one part of Ms. Thompson's piece: "In the DVD commentary Weiss and Benioff snickered as they discussed the scene."
The link does not indicate if they snickered or not. Where does that come from? I haven't heard the comentary myself so I am curious.
Commentary
Submitted by Paul Wilson on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:28pm.
The link comes with video, in which the snickers of the producers can be heard during the commentary.
Oh NYC. I've watched the DVD
Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:28pm.
Oh NYC. I've watched the DVD commentary. And yes, they did snicker. The video is embedded in the link.
Thank you
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:33pm.
for the clarification.
You're welcome. Thanks for
Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:44pm.
You're welcome. Thanks for the WSJ link. Good stuff.
The WSJ piece
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 2:00pm.
completely undermines the position that they were using whatever was laying around.
They had a budget of 60M! Just a load.....
And in related news
Submitted by Someone Said on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 12:23pm.
The Caveman dude from the Geico commercials is suing George W Bush for stealing his likeness.
The Palin hit piece movie,
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 12:35pm.
The Palin hit piece movie, the Palin hit piece series, Bill Maher, and now this.
HBO should go whole hog and rebrand themselves as BHO.
Did you ask his permission?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 12:45pm.
"The last head on the left is George Bush. George Bush's head appears in a couple of beheading scenes. It's not a choice, it's not a political statement. We just had to use whatever head we had around"
Did you ask his permission to use his likeness in a commercial endeavor? If not, he could sue you. He probably won't, he has far too much class for that, but he certainly could.
By the way, why was his likeness even created in the first place? Prop heads like that are not cheap to created. They cost several thousands of dollars apiece. You must have done it for a reason. Were you kicking it around the office or something?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Bush
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:03pm.
is a political figure. I do not believe anyone needs his permission for the use of his likeness in a commercial endeavor.
Bush is a private citizen
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:06pm.
Bush is a private citizen. He's no longer a "political figure." That classification ended the day he left office.
HBO is a commercial endeavor, as is the series. People need permission from private citizens to use their likeness in commercial endeavors.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I don't think it works that
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:10pm.
way.
I would ask you to consider - all of the masks made out of other political figures for Halloween. All the way back to Nixon forward there are masks of former and even the current president.
I don't believe that once you leave office that characterization changes.
Cheers
It does work that way
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:23pm.
All people, even "political figures" have certain rights in America. One of those rights is to prevent others from benefiting from them commercially without their permission. Those rights don't change because of someone's position, or former position. Just because someone like Bush, or Clinton, or any other politician, former or active, doesn't press the matter when things like masks are created, it doesn't mean that they lost their rights, that those rights don't exist.
You don't lose your rights when you take public office. You don't ever lose your rights, period. There isn't two separate classification of rights, one that exists for "private" citizens and another that exists for "public" citizens. Rights don't work that way. Rights are universal, they work for everyone, equally, every time.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Fair usage is what occurs
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 3:40pm.
Fair usage is what occurs most of the time.
fair useage doen't include commercial endevors
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:26pm.
Fair usage doesn't include commercial endeavors. It specifically prohibits it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Sure it does. How does SNL
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:41pm.
Sure it does. How does SNL get away with parodies of famous people or using famous faces for their fake commercials?
You said it yourself.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:59pm.
You said it yourself, those are parodies. Parodies are not depictions. They are not actual images of real people. It's someone else made up to look like a real person. That's called an impersonation.
In the case of using images of real, live people in "fake" commercials, the producers at SNL receive permission first. All it takes is a signed release. They can even be faxed. If the person in question is dead, well, you no longer need their permission. They're dead. They're not concerned about it anymore.
Bal, did you know that if you, say, make a painting of, say, Obama that you put on public display without receiving his permission first that he can, legally, order you to remove it from public display? If you don't, if you continue to display that painting, the depiction, in public despite being told not to, he can sue you in civil court and they will order you to do it. Why is this, you may ask? It's because it his HIS image that you're displaying, not yours. You may have created the depiction, but you did not create the image that depiction is based upon. That's HIS image, his property, legally as well as figuratively, and it belongs to HIM, and him alone.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
True about parodies. But in
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 6:08pm.
True about parodies. But in this case, do you think you could prove that they were using the image for commercial gain? From here on out, yes, because now everyone knows it's Bush's face. But the first time around?
Of course it was for commercial gain.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 6:25pm.
Of course it was used for commercial gain. HBO is a commercial enterprise. You have to pay them to see it. HBO isn't a free service, you know. Anything they produce, at all, is used for their own commercial gain. It doesn't matter if people knew it was Bush or not after it was displayed. They need permission before publicly displaying an image of any living person.
By the way, that's why HBO issued an apology and will be removing the Bush head from further display. They know they are legally liable.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I don't think they needed
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 3:39pm.
I don't think they needed permission for this, considering you can barely see the face.
If it's used at all.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:42pm.
If it's used at all, you need permission.
Think about all those documentaries you see on TV, the ones with the faces that are blurred out, pixelated. Do you know why they do that? It's because, even in a documentary, you need people's permission to use their image, their likeness before you can release it for public display. The pixelated ones are the people who, for whatever reason, didn't give the producers permission to use their image, their likeness.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
A SEVERED head on a pike is a "likeness"?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:19pm.
OMG.
--
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:42pm.
The face is.
And according to everyone at HBO, the producers and every other person who has commented on this thread - it is a tasteless depiction of GWB.
And if his head was floating in a jar of urine and feces - as wrong and tasteless as it would be it would still be his likeness.
So there really is no issue around that. There is a disagreement about whether Bush's image can legally be used.
Yes, it is
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 5:28pm.
Yes, it is a "likeness", because it looks just "like" him.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
HBO apologizes
Submitted by mulgamutt on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 1:22pm.
HBO released this statement: “We were deeply dismayed to see this and find it unacceptable, disrespectful and in very bad taste. We made this clear to the executive producers of the series who apologized immediately for this inadvertent careless mistake. We are sorry this happened and will have it removed from any future DVD production.”
It probably would not have been brought up had the producers themselves mentioned the likeness in their show commentary. Then once the dust kicked up, they claim that they used all the heads they could find around, because "creating new heads from scratch is expensive."
Sounds like to me the producers and other crew knew full well of the likeness, didn't care, and perhaps HBO got blindsided once the fit hit the shan. It still stinks, and we all know this would have been news on a monumental scale if it had been a likeness of Obama. But this is Hollywood, and leftwingers rarely get "the chop."
Seriously?
Submitted by panzerakc on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:58pm.
" this inadvertent careless mistake."
Inadvertent????? So the head that looks like Bush leaped onto that stake all by itself?
Do these people even listen to what comes out of their mouths?
Here's a question
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 2:03pm.
Why do they have a head of Bush lying around? Was it ever used for anything else? If so, what?
Of course this is the new civility, just like Obama bashing W at his portrait unveiling at the White House.
Rad, As if that's the only available head, in their inventory...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 3:00pm.
Wooops....So much for subliminal advertising being a crime.
After all it was Bush's fault for having a his head languishing in inventory.
Ok, HBO tell us what show was it used in originally?
As if these creeps recycle.
You Didn't Build That.
Another overrated crap HBO show,..
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 2:33pm.
That will NEVER see the light of day on my TV! Too bad, cause all that nudity and sex sure coulda been fun to watch!
Is this the new civil tone
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 4:53pm.
Is this the new civil tone that Obama wanted over political and social discourse? Where's a statement from the WH denouncing it?
Then they get pissed and accuse Sarah Palin of instigating a climate of hate over Gifford's shooting just because she had some targets painted on a map.
Tastless HBO Garbage
Submitted by freedomguardian on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 8:54pm.
I was actually looking forward to watching this series one day. Unless HBO comes out with a revised version, they can forget it. I don't care if your liberal or conservative, this is a disgusting and disrespectful act. I hold HBO as a company responsible for this. It's their reputation that has been tarnished by hiring these low life pigeon droppings as directors and producers. It's HBO's job to do the damage control necessary to clean up their reputation.
Loved Game of Thrones
Submitted by stunned on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:49pm.
Loved the books and the mini-series but I cancelled HBO because of this episode a couple of months ago and told HBO I had enough of the hatred on their network. Never heard a word back so they don't miss me or my friends who also cancelled their subscription. We all had subscribed for over 20 years but no more.
tired of liberal lies
congratulations....
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:09pm.
....for be rest assured: They shall indeed miss your hard earned money that they profited off you (and countless others) for all those 20 years. You are not the first person on NB who has proudly announced their "canceled subscription," and hopefully won't be the last.
If they were to lose 50+% of their subscribers (i.e., the self-identified conservatives), be also rest assured that they will change their ways, as ultimately, being the good capitalists that they are, they will bow to the almighty dollar. So reflect upon your savings over the next 20 years and rejoice.
Nothing surprises me anymore...
Submitted by Jimi Streets on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 4:09pm.
These people think so highly of themselves, yet in reality they are the LOWEST of bottom-feeders. They're the worst because they have the means to positively effect society, yet use them to further cauterize any connection to decency.
One other thing...Wouldn't something like this be illegal if Bush was still president? Why wouldn't it be now?