Look, I was on the net when there were only a few million between the US and Canada. I have been in countless forums over the years, so I do not suffer the nitpickery of fools who think they are being cute with such responses as,
you were not candid about the nature....did not stipulate that it was levied only on certain goods.
I do not post for your pleasure nor the lack of your grasp of the King's English. You can take the words 'some' and 'stipulate' and cram them. I do not have to use over-qualifiers because you lack the capacity to understand a declarative sentence.
Moreover, here is something that will also trouble your vision about Reagan: Running for his second term he was endorsed by the Teamsters. Now, go and say you cannot find that information anywhere.
No, you seem to be posting for the sole purpose of tearing down Reagan. Which has not been effective. Being fully informative, not using deceptive language and not holding back information would not be defined as “posting for (my) pleasure”.
The Teamsters endorsed Reagan twice, in fact. That does not mean that either Carter or Mondale would have been a better choice for conservatives than Reagan, if that is what you are trying to say, and I can’t think of anything else one can say on that score, with all due respect, unless it is to name some other putatively conservative politician in place of Reagan. Perhaps things under Jackie Presser’s leadership (an informant for the FBI; so was Reagan when he was the head of the SAG union) were not as dogmatically left wing? although the problem with Mafia incursion in the Teamsters was of course ongoing.