EXPENDABLES TRIVIA QUESTION ANSWER...

Please, do go on. The death of one man outweighing the deaths of 3,000 people and the demolishing of two major American landmarks seems like a curious statement to me.

I think you have to bear in mind that in 1963, televison was still in it's infancy, and we hadn't been desensitized to tragedy to the same extent...certainly no one had ever witnessed a murder on live television before. The JFK assassination was something of a shocking bolt out of the blue to most of the American public, whereas 9-11, while shocking and terrible, wasn't close to being as disorienting because I think by that point, we all kind of had some exposure to similar events.  

Why are the political devisions so much deeper these days anyway?

I've wondered a lot how we got from where we were to where we are, with the political divisions so much deeper these days ...

It has been said that most people are fans of NASCAR and other types of auto racing not because they enjoy the racing, but to watch the accidents. I am inclined to think that news agencies have latched on to that philosophy to some degree, and in many cases they gauge the quality of the story not so much by whether they are reporting the facts, but giving their viewers the most gore. Maybe to some degree, it is because there is sort of a race to the bottom driven by ratings. Back in 1963, all of the news came from the 3 major networks. These days you have the networks, all the cable news outlets and other cable channels with their own news divisions, the internet and radio is still around as well. So to some degree, news reporting has become about sensation and not facts.

Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, too, but I find it hard to believe a single, ordinary man would be able to kill the most powerful man in the world all by himself without some help (take note: three shots fired, cuasing seven bullet wounds in two men?). It's as hard to believe as we're meant to believe that the Twin Towers were built to cave into themselves as if they were being held up by well-balanced toothpicks, as a result of a 90 to 110 minute long fire. 

Well, it really just comes down to what you believe in. Me, I personally don't believe one little nobody is going single-handedly take out the most powerful man in the world without help from someone else, but after 40 or 50 years of people telling you otherwise, I guess you'll agree with them after a while. Likewise, it was proven jet fuel doesn't get THAT hot, and there have been cases of skyscrapers being on fire for over 24 hours and yet they were still left standing. I'm not saying saturnwatcher is wrong in his opinion, I'm just not totally convinced.

As I said, it's like Stone waits for something bad to happen to America, and then he goes out and films a movie about it. JFK, 9/11, now the greed of Wall Street. Again, I'm so sick and tired of these "20+ years later" sequels, it screams "We're out of ideas, so let's just do a sequel to a movie that was popular back in the 80s and hope that people want to see it".