Took you long enough.

In fact, he was banished from the airwaves, literally, where "the airwaves" means "A&E" and the banishment is indefinite ... which is the whole point, innit?

Feel free to provide your evidence that I've done such a thing. You have none, of course: you're lying.

I labelled no such things as lies. You're lying.

You're lying.

You're lying.

You're lying. I am extremely consistent in how I use the word "lie," and I always use it for intentional attempts to mislead or deceive.

You're lying.

You're very confused. Want to try again?

For him to make anyone look bad, he'd have to:

• Stop intentionally, or carelessly, misrepresenting the facts nearly all the time
• Refer to actual points much more often, instead of the norm, which is to attack straw men and introduce red herrings
• Admit when he's wrong, which is very often
• Stop demonizing people for merely disagreeing

None of that seems likely.

Odd. You think that me saying the same things that I say very, very often -- weekly, at least, for many years -- is ... rare.

You know that's self-refuting, right?

Shrug. Since I didn't read the comments in question, I am feeling no pain. But I suspect if I had, I also wouldn't.

The fact that he resorts to lies in the first sentence of each comment implies otherwise.

You're lying. I did no such thing.

I didn't pick one comment: I read only the first one, and then gave up when you lied about what I wrote. And you're doing it again, so again, I won't continue reading.

I didn't say there was. I said the restrictions are arbitrary. I was explicit.

I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.

False. It is removing arbitrary restrictions on business. This is about the free market.

Irrelevant. Not my problem. We are freeing the market. Adapt or die.

Anything you say next is false. I am forcing nothing. Neither is the government. If they are forced to do anything, it is by free market forces.

Everyone, except for those relying on government to protect their interests against the reasonable interests of others, and I have no sympathy for such people.

I didn't go off-topic at all.

So? I wonder why you think you're making a point.

I do not recognize the "right" of any government to ban the sale of a legal product or service.

Even if that is true -- it's not -- it's irrelevant.

This is not a huge issue for me: while it is absolutely clear that laws restricting the sale of legal goods and services are stupid and harmful, it would have far less of an impact on freeing of the health market than much more sensible and broad legislation: to remove the business subsidies for health insurance, and replace it with an individual income tax credit, which will necessarily have the effect of driving down -- massively -- the cost of care and insurance.

In many areas, yes. I hope you don't think you're arguing against me in some way.