That's not my point. Idea-throwing is not the issue here. The issue here is that when you have only two political parties, they have to draw to the center. The center, however, is 40% of the American population, if I have to take a guess, and both Republicans and Democrats want more. So they toss out a line to the other ends, Republicans to the right, Democrats to the left. These "lines", however, are not real ingrained essential differences between Democrats or Republicans, they're just differences of opinion on some often unimportant key points. This is probably hard to see from the inside, but the American political spectrum is *extremely* narrow, up to the point where people used to insanely diverse systems, like the Rhineland countries, often can't see the difference between the two parties and don't see what the fuss is about. I think the American people feel much the same, which is why there's such an enormous lack of caring for your democracy and your elections. You should be worried about this, but you're not. The two parties, of course, know this, and know people could just as well randomnly pick a party than conciously vote (yes, I know that's not true, but I'm getting my point across). For that reason they have to shout and holler at the top of their longs just to pretend there's even a minor bit of difference between the two. Again, that shouting isn't noticeable for you, because it's inherent in the system, but foreignors have to be puzzled at times abotu this stuff. You so need to drop the electoral college already No. This seems so to you because you're on the other end of the spectrum, but, unlike Bush, Moore's not simply pointing a finger and saying "he's gay". And you're not actually going to stand there and say misconstruing facts to make the opponent look bad makes it slander/libel? Do I have to remind you of the whole "political ads" thing of Kerry vs. Bush. "Kerry voted against body armor for our troops" Yeh, nice going on truthful representation there. No, your bias is what makes you rediculous. And you can name up un-biased things you do as much as you like, you're still biased. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hence it must be... People mix this up a lot, especially in Europe. "Communism", according to these people, is Marx system of dictatorship of the people and equal spread of wealth, "Socialism" is the whole Fabian deal, somewhat equal spread of wealth inside the democratic system. Meh, it's just wrongful use of terms, but it is confusing, just like how Americans use the word liberal as a synonym for the Democratic party, which is also wrong, as liberals are just "whoever doesn't agree with the current system" and generally, in the Rhineland countries, the term "liberal" denotes the right-wing parties. Mussolini is a fascist, that's pretty much it. He ran Italy in a pretty right-wing fashion, very anti-social democrat. Hs economic tendancies were not that dissimilar to that of neo-liberalism. However, I think Rak is wrong, Mussolini never stated corporatism is the same as fascism, tho' it is an accepted fact that corporatism is one of the systems that combine into fascism (next to anti-communism, nationalism and dictatorship/totalitarianism) However, Rak is completely wrong in saying Moore fights Corporatism. Corporatism, for the unaware, clasically denotes direct political influence of "corporations" (or, in old times, the merchant class). Today it only has some remnants, like the ILO, but generally doesn't exist. The lobby system of the US could only demagogically be described as corporatism. In reality, it is no such thing. And even if you would argue that the American democratic system allows for the highly undemocratic Corporatism, you have to understand that the Corporatism of Mussolini is a far shite awy from the lobby-system, and comparing the two is idiotic at best.