[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?

[1rudeboy]

"Hypocrite" comes from the flamewar that we're having (not you and I, specifically, just on the thread), and "Protectionism is destructionism" is a direct quote, in Reagan's own words. It's why Mojave wants to pretend it doesn't exist.

This is about the most clear you have been in any post I've seen. But it seems quite conflicting.
You've correctly identified a conflict, but not its source: in a nutshell, the source is Mojave's attempt at sophistry. Reagan can be called a protectionist because he raised tariffs on products from Japan, but Reagan cannot (according to Mojave) be called a free-trader because he lowered tariffs on products from Canada. There's your conflict . . . .