Hi elsinorelore,
Looking at the text you posted and basing my answer on the text, everything doesn't pass to be an idea, a hypothesis by this woman. The problem with this sort of thing is that a lot of people misconstrue what is being said to be the truth.
The first thing she said was, "I'm not sure what the legal position is in countries". She declared that she is not the person qualified to answer this sort of question and should have stopped there, but she goes on,
"I think in the US you might not be". Once again she said she wasn't sure.
She said, "I think" and "Might be". There is so much ambiguity there, but that wasn't enough for her as she continues, "In Switzerland, for example, you might not be". If she is not sure the legal position in countries how can she even begin to comment about Switzerland. Her comments are based on what? Ignorance of course.
She goes on, "As far as I know you just get a ring". I really don't know where that came from as any other obligotory vaccine that exists throughout history, telephone calls are not received. Does she really beleive that everybody receives a telephone call? Really? Really!
She then returns to Switzerland affirming, "and this is in Switzerland they'll be carted off to jail or put in quarantine". Once again this claim is baseless as she already admitted that she didn't know what goes on in countries.
Finally in the quotes you posted she said that, "at least thats the situation potentially in countries like Switzerland and in the U.S.A........". The key word here is the word 'potentially'. It isn't a fact, it's an idea, a hypothesis. She leaves herself protected by saying 'potentially' so that if it doesn't come to pass she an say that she didn't say it would.
It's a little like politicians during campaigns all of a sudden start saying, "I believe" which means that they are not stating fact, they are stating a belief. People take this as fact, but as we can see if we break everything down, it isn't.
In the case of politicians, it's a belief. In the case of the interviewee you mentioned, it's an idea that she has based on nothing factual, which suprises me as a good journalist would have done their homework before making statements.
"The difference between “propaganda” and “journalism” is that (ideally, at least) the latter is built on a robust consideration of the facts at hand" - Dave Neiwert
Best regards,
Steve
Quote:
Originally Posted by elsinorelore
Ok, what I heard on the Project Camelot radio show interview with Jane Bugermeister this past Tuesday was this, ( I didnt have a number counter to see the exact time this was discussed, but it was about 1/3rd of the way through)
Bill asked," if people resist can they say you know what, Im not gonna do this, I refuse to allow this violation of my own body space, what do you thik is likely to happen next?"
She answered," Im not sure what the legal position is in countries, whether youre even entitled to say that, I think that in the U.S.A, you might not be entitled, in Switzerland for example, you might not be entitled to decline...as far as I know, if the gov. or local authorites forces people to take it everybody will simply get a ring, or a call from the police and theyll be told to appear at a certain spot or medical center and there will be no exceptions or excuses allowed, and if you refuse, "and this is in Switzerland" theyll be carted off to jail or put in quarantine, so they really are looking at a situation where you either take the virus, or you have to face quarantine, jail, or police force, you could be forceably injected with this Bio-weapon atleast thats the situation potentially in countries like Switzerland and in the U.S.A........."
Anyway, thats where it came from, her interview! I of course cant confirm any of this, and will try to get some answers to see if its true or not!!! Im very curious!
|