[1rudeboy]

It's like having a conversation with a wall. I have argued that Reagan was a free-trader up and down this thread. I never disputed that Reagan placed tariffs on motorcycles, or quotas on autos.

Yet the latter proves Reagan was a protectionist, but I can't even get anyone to acknowledge the trade agreement with Canada, the trade negotiations with Mexico . . . and don't get me started on the Uruguay Round and the WTO. No one has the balls to discuss them.

[Mojave]

I have argued that Reagan was a free-trader up and down this thread.

I know. You've had a lot of trouble trying (unsuccessfully) to keep your story straight.

[calcowgirl]

I have argued that Reagan was a free-trader up and down this thread. I never disputed that Reagan placed tariffs on motorcycles, or quotas on autos. Yet the latter proves Reagan was a protectionist, but I can't even get anyone to acknowledge the trade agreement with Canada, the trade negotiations with Mexico . . . and don't get me started on the Uruguay Round and the WTO. No one has the balls to discuss them.

This is about the most clear you have been in any post I've seen. But it seems quite conflicting.

From what you posted here, can I conclude that you believe one can be a free-trader and protectionist at the same time?

Where do the "hypocrite" and "destructionist" labels come in?