Blogger JBJD will be my guest on March 13th

Blogger “jbjd” will be my guest on the show next week. jbjd is a “birther” but she is more articulate than most. She has written some recent blog posts critical of Leo Donofrio and most of the ballot challenges. It should be an interesting interview. She has also agreed to take calls. The should be a fun show. More details will be forthcoming.

The show will be at 9 PM EDT / 6 PM PDT (Remember to change your clocks. Daylight savings time begins Sunday, March 11). To listen follow this link:  RC Radio with jbjd The number to call is 347 324-5546.

[Updated 3/21/2012]

Listen to the archived version of the show:


This entry was posted in Birthers, RC Radio and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Blogger JBJD will be my guest on March 13th

  1. TheEuropean says:

    Bravo, jbjd.

  2. Thomas Brown says:

    Sooo… Two men chicken out and a woman has the guts to represent?

    Why am I not surprised?

    • jbjd says:

      She, the people. (I coined this in 2008 – luckily, the internet retains everything – but recently, I have begun seeing this slogan crop up elsewhere.)

  3. Oh, I can’t wait for this show.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. Thomas Brown says:

    Reminds me of my 5th sky-dive. I was 3rd jumper in the small plane. First was a new jumper, a strapping young sporty fellow, a real macho-man blowhard. He had been scoffing at people who were nervous about jumping at the local bar the night before, calling them pussies, etc. You know the type.

    2nd jumper was a small woman who had never jumped either. She paid attention and asked questions at the training sessions, and beyond that really didn’t say much.

    When the plane took off, Mr. Macho grew a bit less blustery. Then we got to altitude, and the pilot crested and slowed for the jump. The jumpmaster opened the door, and ordered Mr. Macho to put his feet out. He did, looking a bit pale. Then the JM said “OK, out on the strut.” Mr. M put his left foot on the wheel, grabbed the strut and climbed out.

    That’s when he looked back in and shouted “Let me back in the plane!”

    The JM hollered back that he would be fine and should just do what he was taught; that if he got back in, the rest of us would have to land because there wouldn’t be room to get past him in the small plane.

    The pilot circled a while as the JM talked him off the wing strut. It took a while, but off he went.

    He did pretty well.

    The small woman was next. “Put you feet out.” She did. “Out on the strut.” Ditto. “Go!” She nodded, let go, hit a perfect arch, got canopy, and that was that. She enjoyed a flawless first dive, grinning ear to ear.

    I remember it vividly because I had never seen such a stark example of unpretentious courage vs. hollow braggadocio not living up to its boasts.
    . . . . .

    I will probably call in to challenge jbjd, but she already has my respect for showing Erlandson and Zullo for the cowards they obviously are. My guess is that she has well-reasoned positions to show up and defend, while the no-show boys had weak gobbledegook they knew would expose them as fools.

  5. Thomas Brown says:

    Well. That was interesting. Jbjd shows many of the Orly Traits, except she’s easily 5x as smart. But the same mercurial style… Refuse to be pinned down on anything, change the topic when you have a losing argument, reliance on the flimsiest of hypotheticals (and the minutiae… egad!) while ignoring the mountain of concrete evidence… It was like talking to a Doctor about a tumor, but who insists on concentrating on a minor pimple.

    She kept saying “that’s your opinion,” as if all opinions were of equal weight and subject to the same skepticism… as if there was no such thing as an opinion OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

    The tell for me was her insisting on the implications of what someone didn’t say… for instance, the state folks required to attest to Obama’s eligibility not “documenting” their statements. Know when that would be a problem? WHEN THE PERSON CERTIFIED TURNS OUT TO BE INELIGIBLE.

    I see a toddler stumble near the subway tracks. I think “she’s going to fall,” and leap forward and catch her before she falls to the tracks below. Now, I didn’t know for CERTAIN she would fall; but I thought so, I was right, and a life was saved. WHO WOULD HARP ON THE POSSIBILTY I COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG? Who would sue me because she got a scuffed knee? Nobody, because she did in fact start to fall. In life, you make calls without 100% certainty, important ones, all the time. It is only a problem when the call is wrong.

    When someone ineligible is certified and inaugurated, THAT’S when we start to overhaul the system. They all said BHO was eligible, and he is. WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

    I’ll tell you: jbjd and the other sour-grapes fans in Birferstan just don’t like that they lost. And they are trying to convince the weak-minded that there are “valid questions” about BHO, when there aren’t. She’s just another partisan hatchet-wielder aiming at our President’s head.

    In jbjd’s case I mean that politically. Some Birfers, I believe, are actually trying to get him killed, but I am certain that she is not that kind of person. Although I believe if she were really honest, she would see that her fomenting doubt and fear about BHO is, at best, irresponsible. What she is doing is harmful to America, and I think it’s dishonorable.

    But I give her credit for bravery. She did what Erlandson and Zullo wimped out of, so kudos for that!

  6. Yes, she deserves credit for coming on my show. I probably write more later. I think that Mike Dunford raised a good point. It was the same one that Frank Arduini made a few weeks ago on the “debate” show. Show me where the system we have is broken. For over 200 years we have never had an ineligible person reach the office. I don’t think anyone who had a real chance to win was ineligible. Where is the problem?

    Now if you want to address a real problem: How did a major party choose a vice presidential candidate as uniquely unqualified and as dangerous for the country as Sarah Palin?

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Plus, I wish I could remember where I saw it, but some court decision mentioned that allowing the several states to each determine Presidential eligibility would “result in chaos.” That seemed to be what Jbjd was arguing for, although it was hard to tell. She has a pretty pronounced case of Orlyspeak. I found myself thinking back over the last 1000 words she said and wondering what her point was. Repeatedly.

  7. Debbie says:

    She was one of the most annoying guests you’ve had on your program. She talked in circles and made no sense whatsoever. She simply wanted to filibuster, and whenever anyone challenged her or attempted to ask a question, she played the victim card and then whined for them to quit “yelling” at her. Dear Lord. NO one yelled at her. I did here HER yell at others, however.

  8. jtmunkus says:

    Yes. An eminently uninteresting character – even by birther standards. Refused to take a stand on ANYTHING. Except that she doesn’t like the parties choosing their own candidates.

    It sure will be nice never thinking about this person again.

    • I take a somewhat different view. I obviously do not agree with jbjd on several things. However, if we want to reach out to Birthers to have a dialog she is the kind of Birther that a dialog would be possible. She doesn’t buy the two parent citizen nonsense and she doesn’t think Joe Arpaio is going to be arresting Obama in this lifetime. For a Birther those are pretty significant stands to take. I was disappointed we didn’t get into some other areas for discussion. I let the show go where it goes for better or worse. I think jbjd is a teacher from what I read on old posts at TFB. Teachers are used to doing most of the talking. 😉

      I think you will like my guest next week. He is an author named Arthur Goldwag who has recently written The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right and also wrote several other interesting books. I will have more to say shortly.

  9. Thomas Brown says:

    “… if we want to reach out to Birthers to have a dialog she is the kind of Birther that a dialog would be possible.”

    I can’t say I agree. Having a dialogue means each party may, in light of a well-reasoned argument, concede that the other party has a point. Last show, I conceded to her point that it would have been better for those she contacted to explain briefly how they figured BHO is eligible. (For one thing, it would have deprived jbjd of an excuse to complain.)

    She, however, showed not the slightest interest in budging from any of her failed ideas. One can’t pretend not to have heard something your partner in the dialogue has said and still have a dialogue. Several callers utterly refuted her statements and conclusions, and she just slid around them on a sheet of semantic grease.

    All she really wanted a venue for a monologue, IMHO. In which case she should, as Michael Feldman says, get her own show.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s