Ok, so I've now listened to all 4 of the 'don't kick players out' podcasts, and I think I've nailed down the major points of disagreement some of us have with these (If this isn't civil enough, or doesn't make sense, by all means let me know. Please read, I'm not trying to wall-of-text, I'm trying to make my point thoroughly):
Long winded explanation [spoiler]
I'm going to go with the dinner party analogy, because it was a good one (sidenote: If I changed every instance of dinner party in these next two paragraphs to DP, it would be awesome). A game is a lot like a dinner party in that it takes 4-6 hours and has 5-8 participants. Now, like a dinner party, a game is often just as much about meeting or getting to know people as it is about hanging out with the people you're already well-acquainted with. Somebody might bring their boyfriend or you might invite your neighbors. If somebody is rude and boorish at my dinner party, I'm not going to kick them out. Hell, short of bodily fluids or threats of violence, I think I'd be decently understanding. I might roll my eyes at the offending guest, and I might be mad that he ruined my party, but, mostly, I'll just be glad I don't have to see him again once the night's over.
And that's where the analogy gets problematic. The dinner party is a one evening commitment. You only have to spend a few hours with that person. But a campaign (at least those I've played in) can be a years long 1/week endeavor and if you always go into it with a "never say kick out" attitude, that means you continue to be stuck with that person. In this sense, a campaign is more like a series of dinner parties, in that, if you really really don't want to spend your time with that person, you shouldn't have to invite them back. Certainly, if you're close to them, or they brought delicious gin to the party (read: something good to the game), you might talk to them about their behavior and ask them why they were so rude. But, most of the time, if the person contributed nothing good, and was nothing but rude, you aren't asking to them to dinner party 2, and you aren't spending your time wondering why. I think the 'convince them not to come' is bad advice. I think that's manipulative and more passive-aggressive than directly removing them, and I know, personally, I'd probably realize I was being handled.
Now, I thought the 4th podcast in this series was really excellent advice for the planning stages of the game. I'm a relatively experienced DM and I still feel like I learned something to try with my next game. However, I don't think 'heading off problems before they start' is particularly realistic. The truth is that this is a hobby filled with a mishmash of people who often have poor communication skills and talking to them and analyzing them until you're blue in the face isn't necessarily going to let you know who is or isn't going to be a problem or who does or doesn't want things your game can't give. Heading all of these problems off just isn't realistic because, unlike Josh, the rest of us haven't all had great experiences with "problem players". The rest of us call them problem players for a reason.
So, the logical conclusion seems to be to be selective about your players. Pick people who you know you can play your game with. But that's also unrealistic. This is a hobby built on "friend of a friend", "can I bring my girl/boyfriend along?", and gaming clubs. And you yourselves have said you hate velvet roping your games (If I can paraphrase, cherry picking your players). As terrible as it sounds, sometimes, in my experience, you're just trying players out to see if they click. The vast, vast majority of the time (like 95%)they do, and most nonclicking can be gotten rid off by good planning (such as you suggested). But, in reality, you can't always work out the kinks in who will work out in your party and who won't. I'm not referring to the rogue who steals from the party (for reference, I would never kick a player out for that, and I agree this is over-prescribed), or other well-meaning miscreants, I'm referring to a person who is simply fundamentally rude and has an attitude that conflicts with your party. For most of us, no amount of planning can completely keep that from happening.
[/spoiler]
In summary, is it better to velvet rope, or is it better to kick players out? And, if somebody's a jerk at your dinner party, how much attempt at communication are you really obligated to do? Because, I think, for a lot of us, it's less than you guys seem to think.