Haven't seen him around on the website in awhile, which is too bad. Along with Eschew Obfuscation, he was among the most passionate and articulate of conservative reviewers. I agreed with almost nothing he had to say politically, but he expressed himself with  eloquence, and, like Eschew Obfuscation, seemed genuinely convinced of the moral rightness of what he had to say, and in my limited interaction with him, he always seemed like a basically decent and bright guy. Also, like Eschew Obfuscation, he would occasionally make a point that I reluctantly had to agree with (not often, but it happened). Would love to hear his take on some of what's been going on politically recently. Anyway, wherever he is, whatever he's doing, wish him all the best.

He is a strong reviewer and stands his ground.   He has not posted since August, 2007, and I hope he comes back from his vacation.

In my opinion, the most sophisticated conservative voice on the site. His writing is excellent and his arguments are exceedingly difficult to refute -- even though I want to, I usually can't pull it off. I sometimes detect a note of obstinacy, but it's well earned -- he's sharp, literate, well read.

An intelligent conservative who defends his neo-conservative views with impressive eloquence and logic. Though I disagree with him on practically everything, I respect his skill. I'll raise Lance to 5 stars when he quits quoting that worthless, corrupt hack journalist, George Will.

After butting heads over politics,and giving one another bad ratings-we discovered in each other a sense of humor and decided that even though we almost always disagree we can respect one another.What's next?World Peace?Ah,the powers of South Park!!!

Update, in response to Tbone's comments. After reading your post I realize that we are saying very similar things but I had mistakenly taken your position out of context in previous posts. I agree that it is a national security interest we are seeking to protect- whether that involves alleviating access to oil reserves or promoting democracy to limit the growth of terrorism (both are perpetually connected)- that in the end it is national security not simply cheap oil we seek to gain. And most imporatantly the distinction is morally significant within the Christian ethic. Further to my point is, that it's Islamic culture that needs to adapt in the face of an inevitable interaction of cultures in an expanding global market. And to protect our security interests we need to foster changes or protect attacks on systems predicated upon priciples we hold as axiomatic. Terrorism is simply a brutal tactic utilized by those who are zealously opposed to the global economy and the interaction with people they despise- the infidels. Economics, are a natural way in which humans allocate scarce resources and services. Some systems comport to the natural order of things some pevert the system in an attempt to reach some illconceived ideological ends but only the former is moral and just. Those who are opposed to the process upon some deranged principles and commit moral abominations to further their perverse vision are the threat to the natural- and moral- system not the resources themselves. If hypothetically there was no terrorist threat, peaceful democracies ruled over all proven oil reserves, and the price of crude was to reach $90 a barrel would we still be going to war? Of course not. The global markets would- through a somewhat painful process- adjust. What is occuring is an inevitable clash between civilizations not a battle for oil reserves. It is, at the end of the day, in our national security interest to protect the principles that are essence of our civilization above all else.

I enjoy reading his posts most of the time. I think he borders on being long winded with his over use of intelligent jargon but there is no doubt he is a smart and very well read young guy. To be so young he has a lot going for him. Its plain to see that he enjoys reading and research which I do not have the patience for (or the time honestly). Keep up the good stuff my man.

I have trouble giving lance a five mostly because it ticks me off every time I go to make a post only to find has already made the point I was thinking of posting more articulately than I could have after spending half an hour writing it. So instead of making any posts, I find my self sifting through my areas of interest only to begrudgingly give him a bunch of helpfuls. In my opinion, Lance's posts on politics, particularly the constitution, are some of the most thought provoking stuff on here.

One of the strongest personalities on RIA. Here is a guy that clearly knows where he stands and makes no bones about it. On top of that he appears to really research a topic and clearly knows what he's talking about. Do I agree with everything? No, but I agree with much of what he has to say. I don't think he's yet mastered the art of compromise but he's still young. A damn good reviewer. I'll give him an extra star just for having excellent taste in women.

I have not found much that I agree with in his political postings, but they read well; he does his research and defends his stances in a spirited fashion. His contributions make the entire discourse more interesting.

He comes off strong with his political posts and they are generally convincing. Has a good understanding of business and management.

Maybe i shouldn't put him down so low because he said i'm one of the worst reviewers. I mean he does have some good reviews and keep it up.

It's time to rewrite my sour grapes, post election review of Lance. I think I'm grudgingly becoming a fan. It seems that in recent posts he is becoming slightly less bludgeonlike in his style, and even more surprisingly, will occasionally listen to an opposing viewpoint. I'm not saying that he's made any progress at all in convincing me that GWB is anything remotely ressembling a conservative, but I do admit that at least Lance thinks about stuff and expresses himself well. Occasionally, gasp, I actually look forward to reading what Lance has to say on a certain topic.

Definitely well read and logical, as conservatives go, probably the most so on this site. His comments are fun to read, filled with content and persuasive. Mets fan/Jets fan? Well, okay: go Jets. UPDATE: Lance, did you say something about Djahuti's mother or something?

I have yet to read a post by Lance that didn't consist of a well-informed, well-written point of view. As a conservative, he is certainly one of the best on this site, along with a few others, and for good reason. So much of what he has to say seems to be written sincerly and with conviction -something that is key to persuading others to your views.

He doesn't say one word like polar does like Yummy, so he's cool. No one cares what you say polar.Update: lol vfern :D(laughs)

We're political opposites. He's a true conservative who staunchly defends his views. A loyal Jets fan, we've corresponded plenty of times on the Jets. And yes, with the Moss-Coles swap, the addition of Blaylock and Adrian Jones possibly taking McKenzie's place, I believe it's gonna be the Jets' year. ... Too bad that he's a Mets and Nets fan though. Well, one thing he can say about about his Mets is that his team never blew a 3-0 series lead. That 2004 ALCS continues to haunt me! Arggh!

A very intelligent reviewer with opinions that I generally agree with. I think Lance has displayed integrity and seems to be a very pleasant individual. I wish him the best and appreciate what he brings to RIA.

I don't usually agree with his views, but he generally expresses them well and with reason. Well worth reading. Occasionally descends into demonizing but not so much as to eliminate his value as a reviewer. Decent guy, too bad he's a Jets fan.

a nice guy. he must sure love me because he likes to quote me. i'm tired of this. there's too much pressure being so quotable. Lance, please stop it. get your own mind and cultivate your own thoughts. but you won't and that's ok. it's nice that you think people like me and Denver are the poster children for Pro-choicers, but as you suggested with Pro-lifers, and i paraphrase here, that you know beautiful women, sports illustrated models who are Pro-lifers, including your fiance. hmmm...Sports Illustrated models. wow there's a group of geniuses if ever there was one. a bunch of women with typical hollywood psuedo-beauty. yeah. i'm sure the three braincells they have, have been dictated by people like you and whatever religious organization you come from. Models. i'm glad Sports Illustrated models support pro-life. that makes me want to see kids killed even more. as for your fiance, well, great minds think alike. take that however you want. UPDATE:Don't worry IJR we all know what's limp on poor Skizero- it would make you negative all the time too. HMMMMMMM Lancy, sounds like someone is starting trouble. i should take a page out of the RIA book and send an email to the administrator asking to have that removed, but i won't, b/c i'm a man, unlike you.

Wow. This guy might be the best reviewer here. He's smarter than me, too. I can tell. UPDATE: (numbah rolls his eyes at the haters)

I'd like to see another dimension to him, aside from obnoxious Bush cheerleader.

What I like about this reviewer is that he takes the time to explain his beliefs and backs them up with detailed facts. He has a lot more patience (and energy) than I have. The fact that he's virtually always right about things doesn't hurt any either. LOL

Smart, well informed, and able to offer persuasive reasoning. For such a young man he is impressively observant and well spoken. It would be easy for him to go along with the opinions shared by many people in his age group but he has beliefs and he sticks by them using facts instead of feelings. In the long run, people like Lance make a difference.

Lance is just one of the many new conservatives that have stumbled onto the site. His writings are indisputible; he always has the facts right in front of him. His comment on Robert Byrd is especially brilliant.

Could this be the conservative counterbalance to our arch-liberal reviewer whose name begins with the letter M? I think that his comments (which I agree with for the most part) are well researched, well reasoned, well written, articulate, and are not marked by stridency. He's a very welcome addition to RIA, as far as I'm concerned.

A leader in the Conservative-Crusades.I loved what you said,The greatest problem people have with defining Conservatism is they cannot define liberalism.I cannot believe Ralphie rated you so high as much as you verbally undress him!!!Good work my man!Update:The inundation of the left wing tidalwave has washed Lance from the top of the RIA reviewer list,and left his rating battered and damaged as a beachfront boat rental shack after the fury of the hurricane. What a surprise!

Supremely intelligent and articulate. Not to mention a rabid Mets and Jets fan. I usually learn something new when reading his ratings. (Not a shabby brother either :-)

Despite some disagreements, Lance is a solid reviewer. He has above average writing skills and always backs up his opinions with logic, even though his logic and mine don't usually correspond. A good reviewer and a pretty nice guy to boot.