Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Reagan was great at distributing his tasks to more qualified people. Probably the best thing he did as presidant was realize he was over his head, and surround himself with people who had a good idea what they were doing. I personally liked him.

He did a beautiful job of resolving the Iranian hostage crisis, cooling down the cold war, and improving American morale. Pity he held such faulty economic beliefs.

Oh well, I'd say the good far outweighs the bad in this case.

I give Reagan 4/5 stars.

Legalized and regulated prostitution is definatly a good idea. My personal political viewpoint rests on three main viewpoints: making things illegal leads to problems, the government is good at regulation of that which is legal, and if it gives the government an income alternative to income and property taxes it is a good thing.

I say the prostitutes should be on the government paycheck, and all proceeds from the houses should go straight to the government. We all know that the politicians will use them, just look at Slick Willy.

Bush is not the worst presidant our nation has ever had. The worst presidants we ever had were the republicans in the 1920's. However, Bush is pretty far down there.

I find it very strange that we fight terrorism, when in fact we are using the exact same tactics on a larger scale. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines terrorism as: "systematic warfare to produce terror for political coercion". The US foreign policy under Bush can definatly be considered "systematic warfare" and if certainly for "political coercion". Any "War on Terror" will be hypocritical, since those fighting the war will themselves be using "Terror" to achieve their goals, only on a larger scale.

Then there is the wonderful job Bush did of slaughtering the US Economy. Although the economy is finally beginning to improve, we are still down drastically from where we were when he began his term in office. As a socialist I am also offended by his outright and obvious support of the Burguois. Despite what others may say, trickle-down economics simply does not work. Tried it in the '20s, and what was the result? The Great Depression.

Final blow: his opposition to homosexual marriages. Under examination arguments against letting homosexuals do their thing just unravel. To base your opposition on religious grounds is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. That eliminates all of the "adam and eve, not adam and steve" type arguments. Than there are the arguments pointing out the prevelance of STDs in the homosexual communities. One should also note that there is a higher level of promiscuity in those communities. Part of the reason for a higher level of promiscuity is that the environment simply does not foster commitment. And for those against it on the grounds that it does not furthur the human race: I should point out the world's massive overpopulation problem. By taking a step back it is clear that homosexuality is something that modern civilized society can afford to let run its course unhindered.

I can say that affirmative action is needed and shall remain needed untill such a point in the future that mankind has undergone enough interbreeding to be the exact same in terms of skin color, hair color, eye color. gender, etc.

What Affirmative action does is counteract the inherent racism present within a human being. People are naturally predjiduced in favor of others like them and against those who are not like them. Without Affirmative Action I see a future where those caucasians who are currently held in place out of fear of lawsuits begin to discriminate against people for gender, race, sexual preference, etc. under the guise of selecting the "most qualified" individual.

Oh, and just in case people were wondering, I'm a member of the gender and race majority. Not all supporters of Affirmative Action are minorities attempting to get "Aide".