Animated history of the US. Of course the cartoon is highly oversimplified, and most critics consider it one of the weakest parts of the film. But it makes a valid claim which you ignore entirely: That the strategy to promote "gun rights" for white people and to outlaw gun possession by black people was a way to uphold racism without letting an openly terrorist organization like the KKK flourish. Did the 19th century NRA in the southern states promote gun rights for black people? I highly doubt it. But if they didn't, one of their functions was to continue the racism of the KKK. This is the key message of this part of the animation, which is again being ignored by its critics. Buell shooting in Flint. You write: "Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before". This characterization of a six-year-old as a pencil-stabbing thug is exactly the kind of hysteria that Moore's film warns against. It is the typical right-wing reaction which looks for simple answers that do not contradict the Republican mindset. The kid was a little bastard, and the parents were involved in drugs -- case closed. But why do people deal with drugs? Because it's so much fun to do so? It is by now well documented that the CIA tolerated crack sales in US cities to fund the operation of South American "contras" It is equally well known that the so-called "war on drugs" begun under the Nixon administration is a failure which has cost hundreds of billions and made America the world leader in prison population (both in relative and absolute numbers).
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: What type of the film is being discussed and what is on of the key messages?

(CNN) -- The photographer who took images of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto moments before her assassination Thursday told CNN he was "surprised" to see her rise through the sunroof of her vehicle to wave to supporters after delivering her speech. Getty Images photographer John Moore captured Benazir Bhutto waving, moments before he heard gunshots. "I ran up, got as close as I got, made a few pictures of her waving to the crowd," Getty Images senior staff photographer John Moore told CNN's online streaming news service, CNN.com Live, in a phone interview Thursday from Islamabad, Pakistan. "And then suddenly, there were a few gunshots that rang out, and she went down, she went down through the sunroof," he said. "And just at that moment I raised my camera up and the blast happened. ... And then, of course, there was chaos." Watch Moore describe Bhutto's final moments " Moore said he was about 20 yards away from Bhutto's vehicle when he took his photographs. Bhutto was rushed to Rawalpindi General Hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Moore said he had been following Bhutto's story since her return to Pakistan in October. He was present October 19 when a terror attack targeting her motorcade in Karachi killed 136 people. In the aftermath of that attack, "The rallies had been very small," because of high security, Moore said. However, the Rawalpindi rally was announced beforehand, he observed. "Whoever planned this attack -- they had time on their hands to plan everything properly, and you saw the results today," he said. Between 5,000 and 8,000 were at the Rawalpindi rally, which was held at a parkground, he said. "We [the news media] all expected it to be filled ... but there were less people there than most of us expected to see," he said. "When I talked with a number of people, they said that people were just afraid to come out, for the simple reason that they all remembered what happened in Karachi." Moore said he himself expected there could be another attack following the Karachi massacre. He said he stayed away from gates at the Rawalpindi parkground, where police were searching people, because he suspected that's where a bomb would go off.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: What was the date of the attack that forced Benazir to keep his rallies small for security purposes?

The mighty fane, with its three massive towers, rises majestically over the red roofs of the town. Its most striking feature is the great Norman screen, running up without buttresses or projections to the parapet and hiding the bases of the square, richly decorated towers of the west front. The plain centre of the screen is the work of Remigius, the first bishop. The rest of it is relieved with rich arcading of Late Norman and Early English periods. The wooden spires which crowned the towers were removed in 1807. In 1192 Hugh of Avalon determined to rebuild the Norman building of Remigius, which an earthquake had shaken. To him we owe the choir and eastern transept. His successors completed the western transept and began the west end of the nave. So much money had to be spent in rebuilding the central tower, which fell in 1239, that the canons could not rebuild the nave entirely, but had to incorporate the Norman end by Remigius. Unfortunately the axis of the west front does not correspond to that of the nave, which is too wide for its height. The low vaulting is a serious defect in the choir built by St. Hugh, but of the superb beauty of the Angel Choir, which encloses his shrine, there can be no doubt. In its richness of sculpture it is one of the masterpieces of Gothic architecture in England. The interior of the cathedral is remarkable for the harmony of its style, which is Lancet-Gothic, and the dim lighting of the nave only adds to its impressiveness.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION:
What architectural style the Angel Choir belongs to?