***I think he grandstands for his own publicty, and builds his fame off dead kids and bad presidents (he has stocks portfolios of tens of millions including haliburton, etc).
Really? You believe he ?builds his fame off dead kids?? Hmm. I saw him advocate for the victims of Columbine and desperately try to explain what pressures those boys were under to send them off the deep end.
As for stock, if this is true, can you fathom any reason (other than he?s a hypocrite) for him owning stock in the very companies he criticizes? Activism sometimes requires Guerilla tactics. Just as some have encouraged people to work in programs in order to get an inside view. When you own stock you can attend shareholders meetings, vote, and are privy to a lot more information. And what better than to use the proceeds earned from an investment in a given company to expose it?
Makes perfect sense to me. But the fact that so many people chose to buy the ?hypocrite? party line that was spun, is a perfect example that the average American is ?stupid?. Incapable of critical thinking, can?t see beyond what someone puts on the surface for them to see.
***I think the idea that you can get a free .22 rifle at a bank, is some how connected to school shootings to be ridiculous. I think he used a tragedy such as Columbine to serve his own agenda.
I didn?t get that he was making a connection there. While I think people should have the right to bare arms, and I agree with you that parents should be responsible for keeping them locked up away from children, the point is the fascination with guns in a Culture of Fear. I think it speaks volumes that a bank would offer a rifle as an incentive to open a $10,000 CD. Why not a lawnmower or TV or tickets to the symphony?
***As did the anti-video game people, and everyone else. Something terrible happens, and they bandwagon on to explain the cause. I don't think such a complex situation can be explained away by such a simple answer, and he is insulting the audiences intelligence by suggesting so.
Did you watch the interview with Marilyn Manson? I?m wondering because it directly refutes what you just wrote. Moore spent a good deal of time debunking the fear-mongering that the right was spinning about Manson etal being responsible for inspiring Columbine. I think Manson made one of the most intelligent comments in the movie when asked what he?d say to the Columbine kids, ?Nothing. I wouldn?t say anything. I?d listen to what they had to say. Which is what no one did.? Moore also interviews someone from Littleton to depict the attitude and pressures kids live under in that high pressure MC burb. He did not use kids or the tragedy for his own gain. Did you really watch this film? Or have you forgotten the details?
***In most school shooting the kids steal the guns from their parents, why are they not held responsible. Parents want the government to do everything from drug test their children, diganosis mental illness to making sure they don't have guns. Shall we employ half the population as government agents to dearm, diagnosis and surveil the rest? It seems like that is where we are heading. If parents locked up their guns this would be a non-issue, like so many other issues being debated.
Agreed. And I was impressed that they were able to pressure Kmart to stop selling ammo. Does it make sense that kids would be able to purchase bullets? He targeted Kmart because that?s where the boys had purchased the ammo used to shoot up Columbine. What was missing in that segment is the fact that the shooter was taking antidepressants, like the other school shooters, which can cause suicidal/homicidal thoughts and behaviors.
***But then again, 20 somethings are shooting up schools in Montreal. I bet Moore is all over that one, eh?
Now, let?s talk about someone capitalizing on dead kids. Why do you think Ladonne?s ?Super Columbine Massacre RPG!? was so popular with kids? The Montreal shooter listed it as a favorite.
http://tinyurl.co.uk/d913