Ditto.

Why do you think de Gaulle had the opinion?

I think because after WW2 he was allergic to any kind dependency on anyone. If I remember correctly De Gaulle also pulled France out of NATO, and France developed their own nukes under him and started their own space program.
De Gaulle was hell bent on making France independent and a dominant power in Europe.
Still he favored cooperation, and was part in forming the EEC, and France was also a NATO ally.
France received about 20% of the total Marshall aid provided by USA, did that make France a vassal to USA? No of course it didn’t. I just think de Gaulle was hurt that France failed completely against the German invasion, much like Putin is hurt about the Soviet Union failed. De Gaulle wanted France to rise to its former level of prestige and international respect. And maybe he thought that Germany working closely with UK and USA, would mean that France would take a back seat?

When Germany started WW2, France was seen as nearly impossible for Germany to take, France was the shield that should prevent Germany from controlling Europe. That shield failed miserably.
France used to be considered a global power, after WW2 France was diminished to just a significant European power.

I think you may be right that the bonds are not an original part of the Bazooka, they were an addition.
I suspect the bonds owned by EU countries are placed as part of a normal economic spread of funds. I am not aware they should have been bought for the purpose of pressuring USA.
I have zero worries that the EU central bank is managed responsibly, it’s being monitored by all Euro countries which is about 20 countries, so I doubt they would get away with anything that doesn’t serve the Euro countries.

France owed their freedom from the Nazis to USA and allies as much as the rest of Europe did. It is not a bad thing to have friends.
And yes Western Europe and USA have been very good friends for decades, that does nor mean European countries were vassals of USA.
But USA was by far the bigger economy, so they had and still have a lot of power, just like Germany was by far the biggest economy in the EEC, and had a lot of political power there because of it.
But the cooperation between the countries meant that all countries had a say, instead of things just being dictated by the strongest.
When USA threatened to invade Greenland it became very obvious that the European countries are from being vassals of USA, with several countries delivering military support to Denmark with actual troops to defend Greenland, and many more declaring their support, and EU declaring that EU would use the “bazooka” against USA if they invaded Greenland.
The Bazooka being by far the strongest measures ever used would be used against USA, for instance selling US bonds, which would absolutely upset the entire American economy.

This “Bazooka” is an anti coercion system EU developed to protect against China, but instead it turned out we needed it against USA. So EU was absolutely prepared against USA, that is the opposite of being a vassal state.

You keep saying that, with no basis, and it’s not true. So no it is not irresponsible.
your ignorant jumping to conclusions based on prejudice doesn’t make you right, and doesn’t mean you have a point.

Funny you never answered what country you are from. I cannot imagine many countries where it’s possible to be this ignorant.
An airbag would be detrimental to safety, so of course they don’t have it, and your question is obviously based on ignorance.
The turning radius is absolutely fine for these bicycles to navigate traffic without issue. way more maneuverable than both cars and motorcycles, no problems whatsoever, your perception of a problem is imaginary, and as I described similar long bicycles have existed at least since 1929. But you somehow think you’re some traffic and bicycle guru that just detected problems nobody was aware of before you noticed them?
You are both arrogant and stupid, using a bike to get your children to kindergarten is just as safe as a car, and not having any emissions is clearly safer, they make our cities safer and the environment of the cities safer.
One more stupid comment and I block you.

Exactly, you don’t know shit about what you are talking about.

That what happened? That USA wanted cooperation back then? That’s a heck of a lot better than what they do today.

What insanity is this?

For instance turning radius and airbags

Orban is absolutely out of his mind insane. And I really really hope the Hungarian population realize that on Sunday.
I think if Orban wins,we need to figure out a way to throw out Hungary from EU. We cannot tolerate EU being hijacked by Russia.

I am not in Germany, and have no idea about German regulation, I am in Denmark. These bikes are extremely popular in Denmark and Netherlands more so than in Germany.
Your concerns are based on unfamiliarity with the concept. Some of the things you suggest are really really far out and irrelevant in reality.

What surprises me even more is that there’s no regulation about it,

There is regulation about lights and reflexes, to make bikes visible in traffic. But safety comes mostly from low speed. IDK if they are mandatory for children, but many people use helmets.
They are obviously just as safe as normal bicycles, and way safer than a moped and 1000 times safer than a motorbike.
The risk of a dangerous accident is way higher in a car. 2 bikes bumping into each other or into a pedestrian rarely cause any injury at all.

None of those issues are serious in reality, they follow roads and bicycle paths fine, and they are driven relatively slowly, so break distance is not a problem. If there were real safety issues I guarantee you it would be regulated here.

We’ve had special bikes like these since 1929 without problems, but the one shown above were only for goods, not for children. And is very rarely seen since the 70’s. But we are used to that kind of bigger bikes in traffic.

Regarding poor visibility that’s just a sign you are grasping at straws, nothing has better visibility than a bike. Visibility is far worse in a car, and a car drives faster. A bike has no blind spots, it has no windshield that can be dirty, and you sit higher on a bike and can see more than in most cars. You don’t need an airbag when you are doing 10-15 km/h.

Terrible how?
Many places it is as safe and sometimes even safer than a car, because many places here now have bicycle routes.
I hope you don’t raise kids in a country where this isn’t safe.
The bike is fine, it’s probably you or your country that is the problem.

I bet children being driven on a bike like that have more fun than being driven in a car.
They are more in contact with the environment, and they are more in contact with the parent, and it’s perfectly safe.
So why exactly would you hope that? Do you really think it’s better for the children to sit with their iPad in a soft cushioned air conditioned car? Where they have to communicate with a parent talking over the shoulder?

IDK what country you are from, but that’s an attitude I would expect mostly from ignorant Americans.
You would probably not send your children to this kind of kindergarten where the children are outdoor almost exclusively either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_kindergarten

That is not stupid, those bikes are cool and very useful. We have them too.

https://www.ladcyklen.dk/ladcykel/christiania-cykel.html

The original here is the Christiania Bike, that has been popular since the 70’s.

No they did not, lowering prices on oil derived fuel is counter to the values that made us introduce those taxes to begin with.
Those issues haven’t changed, like limiting our dependency on oil, and preventing CO2.

People need to use as little oil as possible, that still goes.

The wonderful problems politicians have to deal with. It’s like a kindergarten: “Whuaaa the other kids are cheating”.
I’m not saying it’s not justified, but god there are a lot of “stupid” little issues politicians have to figure out.

Personally I think lowering prices on petrol and diesel is stupid, we have taxes on that shit for good reasons, and those reasons haven’t changed. The reasons being lowering dependency on oil, which this situation is a stellar example of why we do.
And another reason is to limit pollution/CO2 which we still need to do.

Lowering prices on oil products is contrary to our common interests, what people and industries need to do now, is to figure out ways to reduce oil consumption more.
People complaining about fuel prices are embarrassing IMO.

OK I read it as Linux won’t cut it if we are forced to use Microsoft.
Microsoft will of course do everything possible to create that situation, as they’ve been doing very successfully since the 80’s.

How the fuck is Linux a trap compared to the shenanigans of Microsoft?
Microsoft and other proprietary vendors are the trap, and Linux is the way to avoid it.