Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Obama Shoots, He Scores, He Wins – Again, And Again, And…



It was the Michael Jordan of American politics versus its Lance Armstrong.

It was heart, talent, spirit, and mastery of the fundamentals versus “win at all costs”, “whatever it takes”, and regret the truth later.

Romney was constantly tripped up by having to tap dance around prior positions he now wants to disown. He continually failed to provide specifics. He repeatedly said “I know how to improve the economy”, but he never said how. You have to wonder why his support in the state where he was governor is now only 34% and before he announced he would not seek reelection he was losing in polls by 16% to his leading competitor. 

President Obama, on the other hand, demonstrated how he has dealt with the problems that he inherited. He indicated specific programs he had pursued and will pursue over the next four years. He showed that he has done, and will do, the heavy lifting while he made it clear that all Romney has demonstrated is the ability to do the heavy riffing.

Romney was increasingly uncomfortable, hesitant, and testy.

President Obama was confident, in command of the moment and the facts, and reinvigorated.

President Obama showed that he should be President and has done and can continue to do his job.

Romney showed that he was more in love with the idea of becoming President than actually doing the job of President.





35 comments:

  1. One big Romney lie – Obama promised that he would bring unemployment down to 5.4%.

    : Romney's claim is based on a report Obama's Council of Economic Advisers prepared before Obama took office. The council predicted that passage of Obama’s stimulus package would prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent -- a fact Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney cites frequently -- and would bring it down to the mid-5s in the third quarter of 2012

    http://live.boston.com/Event/Live_blog_Second_debate_between_President_Obama_and_Mitt_Romney/52176772

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and is unemployment down below 5.4%?

      Delete
    2. I've already shown how misleading and deceptive that statement was.

      Keep moving the bar, you only succeed in proving that you are intellectually bankrupt and morally suspect.

      Delete
    3. To explain more fully:

      1. Obama never made that claim.

      2. Subsequent revisions of 4th quarter 2008 GDP results through March of 2009 showed that the decline was more than twice what was originally estimated. As a consequence, any forecasts made prior to Obama taking office were obviously based on wildly erroneous assumptions.

      But the righties have always chosen to live in a world populated by their own facts – like the idea that ANY President can control gasoline prices without nationalizing the entire domestic oil industry.

      Delete
  2. Michael Jordan? LOL Oh My, The same Michael Jordan who has stepped away from the decision-making table for the Charlotte Bobcats after enduring a league’s worst .106 winning percentage last season. Obama should be smart enough like Michael Jordan to step away and bring in experienced executives to run things. Great comparison!

    What no mention of Libya and the Rose garden press conference where obama lied about calling it terrorism ? Hey, was that event VIDEO TAPED?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guess what you stupid ass, it was not only videotaped - it's already been played on Fox News. I've watched them trying like hell to parse it.

      As far as Michael Jordan, I'll leave that opinion to the sports experts as regards your attempt to cast aspersions on his career - and the megabucks sponsors have showered upon him for endorsements.

      My God, do we actually allow mental midgets like you to breed?

      Delete
  3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi%23transcript
    The video from the Rose Garden address shows that not once did the president call the Benghazi attack a "terror attack." He used the word "terror" exactly once, late in his address:

    “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” From the context, it was clear that his reference to "terror" was general. Not once did he apply that characterization to Benghazi.

    “I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives,” said the president during his address.

    Funny everyone else including Moderator Candy Crowley is now saying that she got it wrong and that Obama did not refer to Benghazi as a terror or terrorist attack.

    The personal insults that continue to come from you are sad, considering the education of the source.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You called it a lie. The tape clearly shows that he said what he claimed he said.

      Now you want to interpret what he said as not meeting YOUR criteria rather than what he actually said.

      Crowley may be attempting to restore an image of neutrality, but she was also right in what she said.

      When Obama lost the first debate we on the left admitted it.

      You righties can only whine about how unfair the world is when things don't go your way.

      Get over it. Romney got whomped in this one and over the next week the polls will show it.

      Delete
  4. Obama on the View -
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhQRkMKyePI&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nowhere in that tape did he deny it was a terrorist attack. He showed a deliberateness in assessing information unlike Romney who shot from the hip the next day and in so doing put a bullet in his foot.

      By the way, at least Obama went on The View. Romney pulled out of his appearance originally scheduled for tomorrow and said he probably wouldn't be able to find time in the future. Maybe it's just a tactical retreat from his war on women.

      Delete
    2. I guess the women of The View won't be in any of his binders.

      Delete
  5. (Part 1)

    Ken, I applaud your partisan support for Obama, really...its great that you support your candidate hook, line and sinker. I agree, if there was a winner last night, it was Obama, but not by that great of a margin, because I think both candidates looked marginal at best, and both were annoying.

    Romney bothered me with his badgering questions, trying to answer someone else's question after he got the last word in (it worked in the last format, not this one), but think about it:

    You ask a candidate a question, he insists on answering the last question while ignoring yours. Good strategy? Hardly.

    However, Obama was not on top of the issues either. He never answer the question about security around Benghazi, he instead went into a diatribe on how he accepts the responsibility. Great, but what did we do about increasing security before the attacks? He never answered that.

    On September 12, 2012, in the Rose Garden, Obama said: ""Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

    On September 25, on ABC's "The View," interviewer Joy Behar asked Obama about a remark made by his secretary of state. "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Part 2)

      To that, Obama responded, "We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama added that "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved.

      So, it was a terrorist attack, and then, well, he wasn't sure? Either way, lots of confusion, and on the talk shows, and the State Department, where he said the buck stops with him, not them, they stated it was not terrorism. All very confusing and convoluted, which is why he's telling the truth while distorting it at the same time. Inconsistent answers do that, and if you blame G.W. Bush for his bad intelligence, you must blame Obama for his bad intelligence to be consistent.


      As for Fox News, which I know you hate: I watched on CNN, and then went to Fox. Both said that if there was a winner, that it was Obama, but...both also said that Romney had a strong performance as well. When Charles Krauthammer, hardly a Liberal, states that Obama won and Romney missed some chances, you can't really ding Fox...or CNN.

      So, TKO to Obama, not an eighth round knockout.

      To this undecided voter, both were less than impressive. I do think that the moderator was poor at best, and she absolutely should not have stated she had the transcript, which allegedly states that he called it a "terror attack". That's something best left to the candidates to debate, not to show her partisanship.

      In any event, it was underwhelming by both candidates, and time will tell if it made a difference. Romney needs to learn how to slow down and stop being a know it all on all subjects. Focus on the failures of the Obama administration.

      Obama needs to get off the "rich people are evil" kick, and tell people, specifically why he deserves four more years that have millions unemployed and savings depleted. I heard nothing concrete to convince me to change my mind. Plus, his obsession with people making over $250,000 a year being wealthy?

      Its bunk, as anyone who makes that money is busting their butt, as I can attest too. Penalizing success is not landing well on my doorstep.

      Those are my thoughts. You and your readers can agree or disagree, but give me credit for at least attaching my name to my thoughts and not sitting in my mom's basement in my boxers sending anonymous complaints or kudos on behalf of whoever I'm supporting.

      Dennis

      Delete
    2. Dennis:
      We’ve had this discussion before about taxing those earning over $250,000 per year.

      That group constitutes 2% of the American population and 3% of small businesses.

      It is a proposal to return to the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton.

      Is that “penalizing” success, or expecting those who have benefitted the most over the last 12 years to return the favor?

      If you see it as the former, then you probably will agree that 47% see themselves as victims because they pay no income tax, including the retired, veterans and active duty military personnel, all of whom have already made greater sacrifices.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Dennis. While not undecided, this debate did nothing to sway me either way. True, it can be argued i wouldn't be anyway but that doesn't matter.

      Since so many are talking about the moderator, and she is the issue, this tells me she was a problem. like when the res or umpires become the story in any sport, there is a problem.

      Finally, I'll just throw this out there, why should any network, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or any commentator make a difference on anyone's decision or opinion? Shouldn't people be able to watch the debate and decide on their own who won or lost? Is the populace really so stupid they can't make up their own minds?

      Delete
    4. Ken,

      While its true that we've had this discussion before, maybe it's the nature of the
      business that I'm in where I happen to know quite a few people making in excess of
      $250,000 a year (sales), and I consider very few of them rich or wealthy. We're also a
      group that is payment 35% in income taxes, which is too much already.

      I don't buy that those making under $1 million a year are the 2%. With all of the
      millionaires and billionaires we have, you might have your 2% their, but either I know
      more 2%'ers than I care to, or, this arbitrary measurement of success is BS. I choose the
      latter.

      The people who are making millions/billions a year: do you really think that they don't
      have the means to escape the higher tax brackets, like the corporations? Of course they
      do!

      I travel roughly three weeks a month, don't know from quarter to quarter how I'm doing
      until it's done, and then it's feast or famine. It's insulting, under the guise of 2% or
      returning to Clinton era tax rates, or whatever medium you so choose, to tell me that my
      sweat equity makes me "rich". It doesn't.

      I've returned "the favor" too many times over the last dozen years. I don't
      follow Romney's 47% number, but yes, I am offended that I'm funding the 2% of those who
      freeload and take advantage of never-ending programs.

      Throwing the military at me, active duty or retired, the retired from the workforce (who
      don't work, so what income tax should they pay--the benefits that they already receive
      having paid their taxes) has zero impact on me. None of them should be paying taxes.

      You can't deny that there are a certain percentage that are victims, whether 2% or some
      other number. Those in need, all of us should share equally, as a percentage in the
      cost.

      Start with the corporations not paying any taxes, and then come back to me. On second
      thought, let me know after you've dealt with the corporations and the millionaires and
      above who pay little or nothing.

      So I reject your argument, respectfully, and refuse to go back to a higher tax bracket.

      Why should I, hypothetically, make $250,000, be taxed on my Federal Income (not counting
      state), at 35%, but if I make $225,000, I'm ok? Or $249,000?

      All people have to get off of the notion of Robin Hood--blame the rich so we can
      subsidize those less well off.

      If you're saying that this is Obama's platform, on this one issue, you've just convinced
      me to vote for Romney.

      Delete
    5. We are talking marginal rates. That's an increase, not on all income, but only that amount in excess of $250,000.

      Delete
    6. In other words, if the marginal rate goes from 35% to 39%, a person earning $500,000 per year would pay an additional $10,000 per year.

      Delete
  6. Since Obama took office the only true thing I am thankful for is he shut up the Reverend’s Jackson and Sharpton. Beyond that, I cannot say he deserves another four years. Apologizing first, then saying we are waiting for word to come in on the evidence, was shameful, and avoiding all of this a lie. It took him seven days to come clean and admit his friends in the Middle East killed four Americans. He did the right thing in not committing us to an action that might have been wrong, but to apologize to these assholes made me sick. You do NOT apologize for what others do especially when as a country we have no control over the actions of others. That is why they call this a democracy. Period. Unless someone send a nuke to another country, accidentally start a war, or kill a world leader and YOU were personally responsible as president for this action, you do NOT apologize. Did we attack embassies when four nuns were killed in El Salvador? Of course not, and the Catholics in this country did not riot or kill anyone, or use it as a reason to destroy or terrorize. Such is the life of the folks in the Middle East, and Muslims in particular. Now this is not to denigrate an entire religion, but this ain’t a Coke Commercial, and the bottom feeding, goat loving, misogynists in the Middle East could give a damn less about an apology. This makes us look weak and ineffectual. Obama cannot apologize to enough people for our territorial ways. Does this mean we can get money back from Japan and France that we helped re-build after World War 2? I am sick and tired of the whining about trickledown economics, as this country has always had an upper class that benefitted from better tax rates, yet Obama and Smiling Joe did dick about it for the last four years. Want to change how jobs move out of the country? How about the way the rich get richer? How about making people earn their welfare checks? How about the SEC stops destroying documents at a record pace in investigations against Wall Street? How about someone on Wall Street going to jail for all of this mess, or the fact that Obama has some folks from the very companies on his staff from the very firms that damn near destroyed this country. All of this could have been done on Obama’s watch. How about making people on welfare volunteer for thirty hours a week in nursing homes, schools, hospitals, and watch how fast they come off the dole. Make then earn it, and they will go and find a better job. Immigration? Give everyone 24 months to either become a citizen or leave. No entitlements, no free health care, bye bye. But it will never happen because Obama is an empty suit. More is the pity for us and I for one am not going to vote for him. Excuses and blaming Bush (and trust me there is plenty of blame to go around) is past the point of effective any longer. He needs to own this presidency and stop all the BS whining. Ken I respect your fervor, but it may be time to possibly admit that this guy is not up for the job. Romney is not perfect, but what if (and granted this may be a huge if) Romney gets in and does a good job? It has happened in the past (think Clinton and Truman here) and could happen again. I will give the Mittster that chance. He may be an empty suit, but he is an suit with business experience. And it did not come from working for ACORN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dam right Bob. And don't forget how Obummer has failed to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus. Thats a plot by the Muslim Brotherhood. Just look where the west Nile is. Thank God we have patriots like you.

      Delete
    2. Bob:
      Regarding Romney’s business experience (which by the way The Wall Street Journal found that about 22% of Bain’s companies either filed for bankruptcy or liquidated within eight years after the private-equity firm acquired them. Four of the companies that produced Bain’s 10 biggest gains ended up in bankruptcy court, according to the Journal.) here is what it did for Massachusetts while he was Governor:
      1.Ranked 47th in job growth: Despite Romney’s professed expertise in creating jobs, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth during his time as Governor. The state’s total job growth was just 0.9 percent, well behind other high-wage, high-skill economies in New York (2.7), California (4.7), and North Carolina (7.6). The national average, meanwhile, was better than 5 percent.

      2. Suffered the second-largest labor force decline in the nation: Only Louisiana, which was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, saw a bigger decline in its labor force than Massachusetts during Romney’s tenure as Governor. The US Census Bureau estimated that between July 2002 and July 2006, 222,000 more residents left Massachusetts for other states than came to it. That decline largely explains the state’s decreasing unemployment rate (from 5.6 to 4.7 percent) while Romney was in office, according to Northeastern University economics professor Andrew Sum. At the same time, the nation as a whole added 8 million people to the labor force.

      3. Lost 14 percent of its manufacturing jobs: Massachusetts lost 14 percent of its manufacturing jobs during Romney’s time in office, according to Sum. The loss was double the rate that the nation as a whole lost in manufacturing jobs. In 2004, Romney vetoed legislation that would have banned companies doing business with the state from outsourcing jobs to other countries.

      4. Experienced “below average” economic growth and was “often near the bottom”: “There was not one measure where the state did well under his term in office. We were below average and often near the bottom,” Sum told the Washington Post in February. As a result, the state was more comparable to rust belt states like Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio than it was to other high-tech economies it typically competes with.

      5. Piled on more debt than any other state: Romney left Massachusetts residents with $10,504 in per capita bond debt, the highest of any state in the nation when he left office in 2007. The state ranked second in debt as a percentage of personal income. Romney regularly omits those statistics from his Massachusetts record, instead touting the fact that he balanced the state’s budget (he was constitutionally required to do so). He wouldn’t be much different as president: his proposed tax plan adds more than $10 trillion to the national debt.

      Delete
  7. “With lies you may go ahead in the world-but you can never go back.”
    ~ Russian Proverb

    [Five Lies in Romney's War on the "47 Percent"]

    Romney's mean-spirited, callous dismissal of nearly half the nation -- as recorded at an August fund-raiser hosted by a 1 per center with a penchant for orgies -- was filled with both blatant lies and slander by innuendo.

    (Romney's Five Lies and Opportunistic Innuendoes)
    ~A (2) Lie Sampling:

    #1)... the states with the highest number of non-income tax payers are southern GOP red states. These states, in general, also receive net financial subsidies from the federal government, meaning that they are the top geographically contiguous welfare states in the nation.

    You could call the Republican southern base the welfare queens of state moochers, living off of northern states...

    #5) As part of his "47 percent" remarks at the fund-raiser, Romney said, "And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect.

    ...many likely Romney voters fall into his "moocher" category. It is a lie to state that those who vote for Obama are leeches off of the federal government, particularly when the lead federal dependents in the nation are from the deep South – GOP country.

    It's a lie to call blue state residents who vote
    Democratic "victims" of laziness when the blue states are subsidizing Romney's red state voters.

    ...the biggest and most dangerous lie of all; that the wealthy want to support the United States when they are takers NOT creators. What they create is their own vast income and wealth. Some may create jobs, but so many of them, like Romney, nowadays are vulture capitalists or Wall Street gamblers ...

    By: Mark Karlin, Editor of Buzzflash @ Truthout

    http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17517-five-lies-in-romney-s-war-on-the-47-percent

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yet the entire parts about what Obama has not done go ............un-noticed? Ken I respect where you are coming from, but the lack of any culpability on the Obama administration in this entire mess is amazing. Its kind of like the african american community when OJ killed his wife and her lover. You could not find a black kid to say OJ did it. Is the liberal folks so worried that this great experiment will never happen again? This guy is out of his depth, our allies do not trust us, and I can not believe the fervor of the support for Obama. I's like you folks put blinders on. I am NOT a huge Romney fam, but will give him a shot at doing the job.It is far from a perfect world, and far from a perfect choice, but welcome to politics. As to the brave poster calling me a patriot, hardly. Just another guy with an opinion that differs from the Liberal spend and hope they die young agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't address the first part of your comment because the whole "apology tour" myth has been thoroughly debunked. If you want to keep repeating it, as Romney did the other night, so be it. But Politifact has given it a rating of "pants on fire":

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-began/

      Delete
    2. As for work for welfare, that has existed since Clinton. Contrary to Romney's lies Obama did not change it.

      As for immigration, Obama has deported more illegal residents than Bush ever did.

      As for companies moving overseas, Obama has sought to change the tax laws to prevent them from deducting those costs from their taxes thus making it more expensive to do. Similarly with China the Administration sought to punish China for currency manipulation. Both plans were blocked by the Republican House.

      The fact is, as I've pointed out repeatedly, that Obama's policies have succeeded. All you have to do is compare the results here to most of the rest of the world (including China) and we're sustaining a recovery while many of them are going into a second dip recession.

      Back when he ran against Reagan George H. W. Bush called supply side economics "voodoo economics" and time has proven him right.

      Let me know what I left out.

      Delete
  9. Oxymoron:

    "Leading from Behind" Not sure who would ever brag about that one. How can you lead and yet be behind sounds like his economic plan is the same as his foreign security plan.

    Linda Cocalis

    P.S. Ken your still my friend even if we disagree. Love and Peasce!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never let a political disagreement get in the way of a friendship.

      Delete
    2. BTW and FYI:
      Nelson Mandela popularized the concept of leading from behind. As seen in the following quote from Mandela:
      “It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”
      In his 1994 autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom,” Mandela also described it this way:
      “I always remember the regent’s axiom: a leader, he said, is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.”
      So despite the funny phrasing, at the heart of the idea of leading from behind is the empowerment of other actors to do your bidding or, as in the case of Libya, to be used as cover for a policy that would be suspect in the eyes of other nations if it’s branded as a purely American operation.

      Delete
  10. OK how about the EBT issue this past year? It seems Welfare folks could use EBT cards (that look exactly like credit cards because God knows we don't want them to feel bad about being on welfare) and in MA these very same folks were using them to pay for alcohol, TV’s at Wallie World, etc. In fact a friend of mine owns a gym in Spencer and has been burned three times. Know how? There was (until the election year) no POS termination. POS is Point Of Sale and most cards get turned down for lack of funds, non payment, etc. Not so with EBT cards at least until the election, and Obama realized he was ostracizing a huge population of business owners. That means the card went through for all intent and purposes, the person supplying the service got burned days later, and the welfare folks go to skip as they would not give out the info on these folks for fear of making them feel bad. God forbid that happens. So now when you make an EBT purchase (due to the election year) it gets turned down immediately. Gosh how did that happen? As to unemployment? Please Ken, the 99ers (those with 99 weeks of benefits) are no longer counted as “people out of work”, people tired of looking for work (think over 50 here) are not currently unemployable, and the fact that Obama folks now consider “work at home folks” among the “New” employed, and you’re off to the races. Then you have the slam dunk of Obama admitting this was terrorism and apologizing to everyone but the French, but don’t take my word for it. Ck out the Jon Stewart take on all of this. http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/18069-jon-stewarts-take-on-the-libya-that-every-single-american-needs-to-see/ It’s not really a question of right or wrong Ken, just perspective. I took my rose colored glasses off some time ago when I started my blog and choose to leave them off. But then, it may be because I am a Patriot. God help us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob, I love ya, but if Obama walked on water you'd say it was because he couldn't swim.

      I've read your blog and I know how you feel. You're ready to believe whatever the Obama-slammers say.

      You even put up a negative spoof about Obama thinking it was real until I showed you that it was a fabrication.

      Let's just agree to end this pointless repartee.

      Peace,
      Ken

      Delete
  11. O'Brien ur not a bad dude--opinionated as hell--but why not stop insulting everyone that disagrees with you and stop commenting on EVERY comment? Christ almighty, it's getting old!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry you don't like the way I run my blog, but I won't let it become a platform for people to perpetuate misinformation.

      If it's getting old, well, so am I.

      Delete
  12. Limerick Ode To “Romnesiac” Romney
    By Madeleine Begun Kane

    Mitt’s confused — can’t recall his position
    On the issues, a dreadful condition.
    Either lying’s his game,
    Or Romnesia’s to blame—
    The result of unbridled ambition.

    ReplyDelete
  13. And yet you continue to ignore all the other points I have made focusing on the one mistake I made (and rectified on my blog) and yet Obama still gets a pass? Why is it when you present a good argument in politics, the other folks never address it merely bypassing it in favor of telling you how wrong you really are without ever addressing the concerns you brought up? I truly do not understand political parties Ken. Both sides believe whatever is thrown at them as belief of almost a religious like fervor. It is truly amazing. I understand and realize Romney is certainly not my first or even second choice, but given who he is running against, I have no other alternative. If you are against Obama you are a racist bigot who can't see helping the other less fortunate in our society, and If you vote Romney you must be a clueless, woman hating feed the rich Republican clod. Where is the middle ground for people looking at both sides of the issue? When did it become all or nothing? Too bad Ken and we will continue to disagree, and I will continue to respect your side of things. Peace and hand grenades Ken.

    ReplyDelete

All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.