State of Obama's Economy

[Chef Jim]

Since we're on the topic, please keep your "sic" in brackets. Example: [sic]. Maybe the "groups" that you frequent, at night, and illuminated by the moon, can discuss that amongst yourselves, so as not to confuse other folks.

 

For a variety of reasons unrelated to anything that you've displayed intellectually, I think it's best that you don't respond to my posts. You can, of course, as it's your right; I just don't want you to waste your time addressing me since I won't respond to you.

 

That will allow 15-20 minutes that you can more valuably utilize doing many other things - like reading the "Turner Diaries."

 

Get over yourself already. What a !@#$stick.

[Rob's House]

The majority of the indignation directed at Bush was with respect to the Iraq War. As it turns out, the justification was not substantiated with results. It just wasn't. Trillions in tax dollars were spent for a conflict that wasn't what it was claimed to be. Whether or not there were ancillary justifications that people *may have* been happy with if articulated preliminarily is really of no consequence. You can't prove a negative and all we know is that what was presented as the case for war wasn't substantiated in fact, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

 

I don't care to relitigate this issue. I'm making a salient point about whence the ire towards Bush comes. The dislike had predominately politcal origins.

 

There were, however, some personal things that were unfairly leveled at Bush. Media suggestions were that he was somewhat unexceptional and incurious. He did have a tendency to bumble his words and was plain-folkish. To some, that was endearing; to many, that made him seem disengaged (and I'm being all kinds of euphemistic).

 

Obama is a different story. They've called him anti-American. They've said that he hates white people (not from an entertainer either). They've said that he is literally, not an American. They've disrespected his religion. They've taken very old associations and suggested it had an affect on his capacity to be President. They've called him a Manchurian candidate. Two years were devoted to his birth certificate. He was, functionally, called a liar, a charlatan and a hoax. The New Yorker magazine had a cover that illustrated he and his family as black revolutionaries and his wife, an educated Harvard grad, as an afro-sporting black panther. He has been illustrated as a Kool Aid drinking, watermelon eating, chicken devouring fiend - a foul throwback to early 20th century bigotry. Republican Congresspersons were circulating pictures of Obama as the child of chimpanzees. His dad was disrespected posthumously; he was analogized to modern-day black dads who father tons of kids only to leave, have more and collect the corresponding welfare benefits.

 

There were caricatures of Bush, yes. The "Mad Magazine" face comes to mind. They were inappropriate and insensitive and don't have a place in any square political discourse. And there were anecdotes about Bush's past to. Whatever Bush did or didn't do in college didn't implicate his capcity to be president. The attacks weren't fair.

 

The difference is, though, that Bush generally seemed to be criticized for the squareness of his political decision-making. The dislike of him, the caricatures, the jokes, all came from a place of political disharmony. What is the political point being made by illustrating Obama with big lips eating chicken? What is the political point made by questioning his Christianity, his nationality, and his love of country? What is the political point made by illustrating his wife as a black "soul sister"? Whence does it come?

 

I stand by my point. The political virulence against Obama far exceed (at least in scope) that which was directed at Bush.

I think you're looking at this through a strange and biased prism. Bush was getting it from all angles long before Iraq was even in the picture. Hatred for him spurred from the decision not to let the Dems pull an Al Franken and keep recounting until the numbers came out the "right way."

Commie Central even had TV shows mocking the guy (That's my Bush, Little Bush). SNL's whole show was dedicated to mocking Bush as a boob. Every late night talk show ripped him incessantly. He was portrayed as an idiot and a fool from day 1. He came into office right after the Tech Bubble burst causing the "surplusses" to dissipate. Before he had even passed a budget he was getting blamed for the "Bush Recession". At 6% unemployment you'd have thought it was soup line America. Once Iraq hit all bets were off and now he was a war criminal and an evil empirialist who would spill the blood of innocents to line the pockets of his oil rich cronies over at Haliburton.

 

But those are just the highlights. Let us not forget how everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, was a !@#$ing scandal or an outrage. It would take all day to go through all of them.

 

Joe Wilson's bogus story about yellow cake in Niger spawned the solemn faced serious concerns about those "16 words" in the state of the union address, which led to "Bush Lied People Died!!!"

 

The one that sticks out in my memory is the "scandal" that arose of the firing of the U.S. attorneys. It was a total non-story, but illustrates just how reflexive the scandal inquiries were. The default news cycle was reported through that lens that Bush was bad and needed to be kept in line by a media watchdog. And this wasn't just on MSNBC and HuffPo, it was widespread throughout the mass media. Obama requires no such watchdog because it's utter insanity to assume anything but good intentions on his part.

 

Contrast this with Obama. SNL sucks his dick, The whole Commie Central lineup sucks his dick, late night shows won't rip on him for anything of substance. Whenever he does an interview the interviewer ends up with Obama's seed on his chin, unless it's O'Reilly who just gives it a few strokes.

 

The news on Obama is almost always given through a positive lens. He gets a complete pass on the economy from most sectors of the media on the grounds that he inherrited it. And whereas that argument may have some merit, it ignores the fact that he promised he could fix it, it has dragged out far longer than it should under the circumstances, his policies have failed to achieve their stated purpose, and let's not forget that Bush didn't get such courtesy.

 

His questionable background (Bill Ayers, Tony Rezco, Rev "US of KKKA" Wright) all got white washed by every major media outlet outside of conservative talk radio and Faux news. Can you imagine if Bush used to kick it with guys that blew up buildings? Or if he got a sweetheart land deal from a TX slum-lord or evil oil tycoon for who Bush had just passed legislation that make that guy rich? Or if the preacher in his church screamed some nonsense about God hating "fags" or some such derogatory terms about minorities? Would the media have breezed over it and reminded us constantly that it was all taken out of context and it wasn't Bush that said it? Really?

 

You mention the birth certificate scrutiny, but lets look at it in perspective. Bush's national guard service, which was of no constitutional consequence, was delved into on a mass scale and through a very skeptical lens. They even forged papers to show he dipped on the National Guard. Can you imagine if Sean Hannity forged a Kenyan birth certificate of Obama. If he claimed he didn't know and got fired would people let "Faux" News off the hook like they did CBS?

 

We've been assured however that anyone who would even dream Obama might have been born outside of the U.S. is a crazy whack job. Even though he spent much of his childhood in a muslim country going to muslim schools, and is the son of a muslim father, and goes to the church of Kill Whitey anyone who could so much as assume a possibility that he's not a devout Christian is a fringe nut case. But serious consideration for every fanatical Bush conspiracy theory was not only warranted, it was the height of healthy discourse.

 

According to MOST news coverage, anyone who could ever suspect Obama of being anything other than a regular Christian guy who loves America, loves freedom, loves Jesus, and has nothing but moderate thoughts, moderate ideas, moderate friends, and breathes moderate air is an ignorant, stupid, racist, hick. And probably hates children and puppies.

 

In short, when it comes to mass media, Obama is innocent until proven guilty, and he has to be found guilty far beyond any shred of a doubt before speaking a disparaging word. However, Bush was guilty until proven innocent, and even if proven innocent, he still probably had a guilty mind.

 

You can stand by your statement that political virulence against Obama far exceeds that which was directed at Bush, but that's fantasy. I don't believe that you can be honest with yourself and still come to that conclusion.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Rob's House

[Rob's House]

You refer to an article by a hard-core partisan liberal (Andrew Sullivan).

I wouldn't call Andrew Sullivan a hard-core liberal, unless he's swung hard to the left in the last few years. I saw him on Bill Maher years back (when I still watched that show) heated and passionately deriding Chomsky's anti-American philosophies. I do recall him jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon few weeks later and thinking (and I got the impression Maher thought so too) that he was bailing on his true opinion to improve his reputation amongst certain segments.

[3rdnlng]

I think you're looking at this through a strange and biased prism. Bush was getting it from all angles long before Iraq was even in the picture. Hatred for him spurred from the decision not to let the Dems pull an Al Franken and keep recounting until the numbers came out the "right way."

Commie Central even had TV shows mocking the guy (That's my Bush, Little Bush). SNL's whole show was dedicated to mocking Bush as a boob. Every late night talk show ripped him incessantly. He was portrayed as an idiot and a fool from day 1. He came into office right after the Tech Bubble burst causing the "surplusses" to dissipate. Before he had even passed a budget he was getting blamed for the "Bush Recession". At 6% unemployment you'd have thought it was soup line America. Once Iraq hit all bets were off and now he was a war criminal and an evil empirialist who would spill the blood of innocents to line the pockets of his oil rich cronies over at Haliburton.

 

But those are just the highlights. Let us not forget how everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, was a !@#$ing scandal or an outrage. It would take all day to go through all of them.

 

Joe Wilson's bogus story about yellow cake in Niger spawned the solemn faced serious concerns about those "16 words" in the state of the union address, which led to "Bush Lied People Died!!!"

 

The one that sticks out in my memory is the "scandal" that arose of the firing of the U.S. attorneys. It was a total non-story, but illustrates just how reflexive the scandal inquiries were. The default news cycle was reported through that lens that Bush was bad and needed to be kept in line by a media watchdog. And this wasn't just on MSNBC and HuffPo, it was widespread throughout the mass media. Obama requires no such watchdog because it's utter insanity to assume anything but good intentions on his part.

 

Contrast this with Obama. SNL sucks his dick, The whole Commie Central lineup sucks his dick, late night shows won't rip on him for anything of substance. Whenever he does an interview the interviewer ends up with Obama's seed on his chin, unless it's O'Reilly who just gives it a few strokes.

 

The news on Obama is almost always given through a positive lens. He gets a complete pass on the economy from most sectors of the media on the grounds that he inherrited it. And whereas that argument may have some merit, it ignores the fact that he promised he could fix it, it has dragged out far longer than it should under the circumstances, his policies have failed to achieve their stated purpose, and let's not forget that Bush didn't get such courtesy.

 

His questionable background (Bill Ayers, Tony Rezco, Rev "US of KKKA" Wright) all got white washed by every major media outlet outside of conservative talk radio and Faux news. Can you imagine if Bush used to kick it with guys that blew up buildings? Or if he got a sweetheart land deal from a TX slum-lord or evil oil tycoon for who Bush had just passed legislation that make that guy rich? Or if the preacher in his church screamed some nonsense about God hating "fags" or some such derogatory terms about minorities? Would the media have breezed over it and reminded us constantly that it was all taken out of context and it wasn't Bush that said it? Really?

 

You mention the birth certificate scrutiny, but lets look at it in perspective. Bush's national guard service, which was of no constitutional consequence, was delved into on a mass scale and through a very skeptical lens. They even forged papers to show he dipped on the National Guard. Can you imagine if Sean Hannity forged a Kenyan birth certificate of Obama. If he claimed he didn't know and got fired would people let "Faux" News off the hook like they did CBS?

 

We've been assured however that anyone who would even dream Obama might have been born outside of the U.S. is a crazy whack job. Even though he spent much of his childhood in a muslim country going to muslim schools, and is the son of a muslim father, and goes to the church of Kill Whitey anyone who could so much as assume a possibility that he's not a devout Christian is a fringe nut case. But serious consideration for every fanatical Bush conspiracy theory was not only warranted, it was the height of healthy discourse.

 

According to MOST news coverage, anyone who could ever suspect Obama of being anything other than a regular Christian guy who loves America, loves freedom, loves Jesus, and has nothing but moderate thoughts, moderate ideas, moderate friends, and breathes moderate air is an ignorant, stupid, racist, hick. And probably hates children and puppies.

 

In short, when it comes to mass media, Obama is innocent until proven guilty, and he has to be found guilty far beyond any shred of a doubt before speaking a disparaging word. However, Bush was guilty until proven innocent, and even if proven innocent, he still probably had a guilty mind.

 

You can stand by your statement that political virulence against Obama far exceeds that which was directed at Bush, but that's fantasy. I don't believe that you can be honest with yourself and still come to that conclusion.

 

 

Very well put. Remember, he did admit to being born in Asia, just a month or two ago.

[DC Tom]

Very well put. Remember, he did admit to being born in Asia, just a month or two ago.

 

I hate all of you, who are even discussing where Obama was born.

[3rdnlng]

I hate all of you, who are even discussing where Obama was born.

 

Wrong species, I'm throwing you back in.

[IDBillzFan]

I wouldn't call Andrew Sullivan a hard-core liberal, unless he's swung hard to the left in the last few years. I saw him on Bill Maher years back (when I still watched that show) heated and passionately deriding Chomsky's anti-American philosophies. I do recall him jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon few weeks later and thinking (and I got the impression Maher thought so too) that he was bailing on his true opinion to improve his reputation amongst certain segments.

Andrew Sullivan wrote a lengthy article in Daily Beast last year (link here) disputing whether Sarah Palin actually gave birth to her son Trig. The only person who would spend THAT much time writing THAT much copy on a topic that is only of interest to hard-core liberals is either another hard-core liberal or a person who simply has no other way to earn a living than to dish dirt on the low-hanging fruit.

 

So maybe you're right. Maybe he's not a hard-core liberal, but rather just another guy who found a lazy way to make a quick buck off the people who think a Sarah Palin "birther" story is relevant.

[Rob's House]

Andrew Sullivan wrote a lengthy article in Daily Beast last year (link here) disputing whether Sarah Palin actually gave birth to her son Trig. The only person who would spend THAT much time writing THAT much copy on a topic that is only of interest to hard-core liberals is either another hard-core liberal or a person who simply has no other way to earn a living than to dish dirt on the low-hanging fruit.

 

So maybe you're right. Maybe he's not a hard-core liberal, but rather just another guy who found a lazy way to make a quick buck off the people who think a Sarah Palin "birther" story is relevant.

That's disappointing. I wasn't a huge fan by any means, but I thought he was better than that. As bad as the disparity between the coverage of Bush and Obama, the media of treatment of Palin as opposed to that of Obama is incontrovertible evidence of wide sweeping bias.

 

Not once have I ever heard a lib explain why the prospect of a relatively inexperienced novice being a heart beat [or lack there of to be exact] away from the Presidency is terrifying, but having an inexperienced novice elected directly to the Presidency requires no such scrutiny.

 

It is interesting how Palin's 16 year old daughter and infant son are fair game, but Obama's loud mouth militant wife is off limits. Or how "Troopergate" was not only deserving of a scandalous title, but was an important public interest story regarding abuse of power, but getting a kick-back from Tony Rezco for abusing the power of your office to push through legislation for him is a non-issue.

[B-Man]

Back on the State of Obama's Economy front..............

 

 

Wall Street Journal

 

The Anti-Jobs President :Obama rejects the Keystone XL pipeline and blames Congress..

 

The central conflict of the Obama Presidency has been between the jobs and growth crisis he inherited and the President's hell-for-leather pursuit of his larger social-policy ambitions. The tragedy is that the economic recovery has been so lackluster because the second impulse keeps winning.

 

Yesterday came proof positive with the White House's repudiation of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada's $7 billion shovel-ready project that would support tens of thousands of jobs if only it could get the requisite U.S. permits. Those jobs, apparently, can wait.

 

Unless the President objected, December's payroll tax deal gave TransCanada the go-ahead in February to start building the pipeline, which would travel 1,661 miles from Alberta to interconnections in Oklahoma and then carry Canadian crude to U.S. refiners on the Gulf Coast.

 

The State Department, which presides over the Keystone XL review because it would cross the 49th parallel, claimed yesterday that the two-month Congressional deadline was too tight "for the President to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest." The White House also issued a statement denouncing Congress's "rushed and arbitrary deadline," which merely passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

 

 

This is, to put it politely, a crock.

 

 

Keystone XL has been planned for years and only became a political issue after the well-to-do environmental lobby decided to make it a station of the green cross. TransCanada filed its application in 2008, and State determined in 2010 and then again last year that the project would have "no significant impacts" on the environment, following exhaustive studies. The Environmental Protection Agency chose to intervene anyway, and the political left began to issue ultimatums and demonstrate in front of the White House, so President Obama decided to defer a final decision until after the election.

 

The missed economic opportunity was spelled out Tuesday by Mr. Obama's own Jobs Council, which released a report that endorsed an "all-in approach" on energy, including the "profound new opportunities in shale gas and unconventional oil." The 27 members handpicked by the President recommended that he support "policies that facilitate the safe, thoughtful and timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects," and they warned that failing to do so "would stall the engine that could become a prime driver of U.S. jobs and growth in the decades ahead."

 

Only last week the White House issued a "jobs" report praising domestic energy production, but that now looks like political cover for this anti-jobs policy choice.

 

State did give TransCanada permission to reapply using an alternate route, timetable indefinite. The construction workers, pipefitters, mechanics, welders and electricians who might otherwise be hired for the projectwell, they must be thrilled with this consolation prize. Not to mention all the other Americans who might fill "spin-off" jobs on the pipeline's supply chain like skilled manufacturers and equipment suppliers, or still others who might work in oil refining and distribution.

 

Environmentalists seem to think they can prevent the development of Canada's oil-rich tar sands, and that their rallies against Keystone XL will keep that carbon in the ground. They can't, and it won't. America's largest trading partner will simply build a pipeline to the Pacific coast from Alberta and sell its petroleum products to Asia instead, China in particular.

 

Such green delusions are sad, and Mr. Obama's pandering is sadder, though everything the country stands to lose is saddest. If Mitt Romney and the other GOP candidates have any political wit, they'll vindicate the Keystone's "national interest" and make Mr. Obama explain why job creation is less important than the people who make a living working for the green anti-industrial complex.

 

 

 

.

Edited January 19, 2012 by B-Man

[Adam]

Back on the State of Obama's Economy front..............

 

 

Wall Street Journal

 

 

 

 

 

.

And I ask again- what would be wrong with having the refinery up north, instead?

[Magox]

Is the economy better than it was 6 months ago? yes

 

Are there signs of improvement? yes

 

Is it performing as well as it should at this stage of the recovery? no

 

 

 

That' it.

[Magox]

 

1. I don't like the idea of substantially cutting corporate tax rates either because I don't think that there is a necessary correlation between that and job creation.

 

 

 

Of course cutting corporate tax rates can increase job growth, unless you have those cool myopic lenses that those leftist pundits use. Repeat after me, not all tax cuts are created equal.

 

Lowering the cost of capital does indeed attract business... IT just depends who is receiving the tax cut, for some businesses and individuals all it does is pad their savings, for others it allows expansion. Thats why targeted corporate tax cuts can be instrumental for this recovery.

[3rdnlng]

Who owns corporations? Shareholders. Who are the shareholders? Individuals, pension funds, etc. Do they pay taxes on their capital gains? Yes. If we were to eliminate all taxes on corporate profits their profits would either go in to research and development (which is good) or dividends or eventually capital gains. Dividends get taxed. I have to laugh at the ignorance of the people blasting corporations for being evil when they are owned by the teachers and plumbers unions.

 

I wonder what would happen if all the global corporations knew they could set up their headquarters here in the USA and have the choice of putting their preliminary profits into R&D or dividends without having to pay taxes.

[Juror#8]

Not only are Obama's detractors racially motivated, but now disagreeing with J8 is pure bigotry. Notice how we came full circle?

 

Now you're just playing the race card; that's pathetic.

 

I've disagreed with just about everyone in here. I've had some decidedly uncivil debates with OCinBuffalo and others. Heck, I've even bullshitted and joked with you about racial stereotypes.

 

Where were the claims of bigotry?

 

Can anyone find any, ever? *Patiently Waiting*

 

Exactly. You can't, because I haven't.

 

You're playing the race card...unabashedly.

 

And in fact, I never called LABillzfan a "bigot." You can play around with the innuendo, but shouldn't that be equally applicable. Hmmmm..... Give it some thought, you'll get there.

 

At the end of the day though, LABillzfan is a despicable and reprehensible creature. He knows what he wrote. I know what he wrote. You must not have caught it. Ok, that's fine; but don't defend the indefensible on grounds that you're not fully cognizant of.

 

This is not about a simple disagreement or difference of opinion. I wish it were. If it were, I wouldn't feel compelled to spit in LABillzfan's face in the presence of his family. I wouldn't do that, of course, because I like to think that I have, at least, a modicum of class. However that represents my level of contempt for him. And trust me, it's very well founded.

 

Of course words on a forum can be edited, and meaning adjusted, but I read what I read. And we'll leave it that.

 

I just hope that you don't continue trying to carry his water.

[Juror#8]

I have a better idea. You could just put him on your ignore list. It's this neat little feature that TSW uses, just like most modern Intartube Massege Boreds. You put somebody on your Ignore List and BAM! You don't see their posts.

 

But that would require you doing something. Much easier to have other people modify their behavior for your beneifit. Typical Entitlement Mentality.

 

Wow, you and Chef Jim are such !@#$ing posers. Neither of you add anything substantive, ever. The only thing you two do is swoop in, mid-conversation, piggy-back insult style, and then leave as quickly as you arrived.

 

You're a !@#$ing tapeworm, feeding on LABillzfan's excrement. How does that **** taste?

 

I've been meaning to ask you, are you as effeminate as your posts suggest? Or has riding other poster's cocks entirely emasculated you over time?

 

I got an idea that can help us both out. I'm looking to buy a GT500 without selling my 03. You like rooster. You pick a corner on 14th or M street, turn a trick, and get me my money. I'll toss you a couple of coins for your services.

 

At least then you can realize a financial benefit from your hoaring.

[3rdnlng]

Now you're just playing the race card; that's pathetic.

 

I've disagreed with just about everyone in here. I've had some decidedly uncivil debates with OCinBuffalo and others. Heck, I've even bullshitted and joked with you about racial stereotypes.

 

Where were the claims of bigotry?

 

Can anyone find any, ever? *Patiently Waiting*

 

Exactly. You can't, because I haven't.

 

You're playing the race card...unabashedly.

 

And in fact, I never called LABillzfan a "bigot." You can play around with the innuendo, but shouldn't that be equally applicable. Hmmmm..... Give it some thought, you'll get there.

 

At the end of the day though, LABillzfan is a despicable and reprehensible creature. He knows what he wrote. I know what he wrote. You must not have caught it. Ok, that's fine; but don't defend the indefensible on grounds that you're not fully cognizant of.

 

This is not about a simple disagreement or difference of opinion. I wish it were. If it were, I wouldn't feel compelled to spit in LABillzfan's face in the presence of his family. I wouldn't do that, of course, because I like to think that I have, at least, a modicum of class. However that represents my level of contempt for him. And trust me, it's very well founded.

 

Of course words on a forum can be edited, and meaning adjusted, but I read what I read. And we'll leave it that.

 

I just hope that you don't continue trying to carry his water.

 

 

 

So, are you saying LA wrote something contemptable and then edited it out? Was it in this thread? Did you quote him and respond? Do you know that he can't edit anything out that you have quoted in a post? I've seen a lot of LA's posts and find your accusation hard to believe. Your innuendo is unbecoming. Get this out in the open by openly accusing him of something specific or show proof by posting what he wrote. Leaving things the way you are doing is a low blow.

[Juror#8]

Get over yourself already. What a !@#$stick.

 

That's all you have?

 

How about this cook, get in the kitchen and make me a !@#$ing sandwich.

 

I'm tired of smelling you. Your lady gap smells like a bunch of "B word."

 

No onions on the sandwich either cupcake.

[3rdnlng]

Wow, you and Chef Jim are such !@#$ing posers. Neither of you add anything substantive, ever. The only thing you two do is swoop in, mid-conversation, piggy-back insult style, and then leave as quickly as you arrived.

 

You're a !@#$ing tapeworm, feeding on LABillzfan's excrement. How does that **** taste?

 

I've been meaning to ask you, are you as effeminate as your posts suggest? Or has riding other poster's cocks entirely emasculated you over time?

 

I got an idea that can help us both out. I'm looking to buy a GT500 without selling my 03. You like rooster. You pick a corner on 14th or M street, turn a trick, and get me my money. I'll toss you a couple of coins for your services.

 

At least then you can realize a financial benefit from your hoaring.

 

 

 

For a moderate conservative you seem to be getting into alot of fights with conservatives.

[Chef Jim]

That's all you have?

 

How about this cook, get in the kitchen and make me a !@#$ing sandwich.

 

I'm tired of smelling you. Your lady gap smells like a bunch of "B word."

 

No onions on the sandwich either cupcake.

 

That's all you're worth and really you aren't worth that. I just had a major lapse in judgement.

[DC Tom]

That's all you have?

 

How about this cook, get in the kitchen and make me a !@#$ing sandwich.

 

I'm tired of smelling you. Your lady gap smells like a bunch of "B word."

 

No onions on the sandwich either cupcake.

 

But he's right. When you have an attitude that rivals mine, you have serious issues (I don't, because having the attitude of being the smartest person in the room isn't a problem when you really are the smartest person in the room).