☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
- 4.19K Posts
- 4.39K Comments
2·2 hours agoClearly there’s no point for the reason you yourself helpfully explained. Maybe you can find a smart friend or a parent to explain this to you.
I’ve stated it clearly and repeatedly. If you have reading comprehension problems that’s on you.
Are you a chat bot?
ok there dronie
You have now reduced a critique of current policy to a childish whine of hypocrisy. Very well. If you insist on a primer. Supporting the position requires only the examination of a single budget cycle. Observe the funds allocated for military aid to a non-member state. Then observe the funds denied for energy subsidies, social stabilization, or infrastructure renewal within the member states themselves. The support is in the spreadsheet. The argument is in the allocation. The hypocrisy is in the rhetorical commitment to a social Europe that is perpetually deferred in favor of a fortress Europe.
If you cannot discern an argument within the empirical evidence of fiscal choices, then no amount of explanation will penetrate the fog. You are demanding a philosophical treatise when the proof is in the accounting. It is not my fault you are reading the ledger without comprehension.
Your attempt at a rebuttal is a fascinating study in missing the point. You have constructed a series of elaborate, irrelevant hypotheticals while steadfastly ignoring the central, rather blatant contradiction I presented. The relationship is one of priority, a concept you seem to graze but never fully grasp. It is not that Europe cannot address external threats. It is that its institutions consistently find limitless coffers for geopolitical artillery while pleading poverty for domestic welfare. To equate a sovereign debt crisis from a bygone decade with the present-day choice to fund foreign armaments over internal aid is either disingenuous or remarkably simplistic.
Your sudden concern for the sanctity of the common currency is touching, if conveniently selective. The fiscal prudence you now champion was notably absent when underwriting banks or military contracts. You demand an exhaustive thesis when a simple observation of present action versus present inaction suffices. The argument is self evident in the allocation. That you require it spelled out with supporting footnotes merely confirms the initial assessment of your comprehension. Shall I draw you a picture?
I do believe my initial statement was unambiguous. The intellectual deficiency here lies not in the articulation but in its reception. Allow me to elucidate for your particular benefit. The European Union has declined to appropriate funds for the welfare of its own populace, yet demonstrates remarkable alacrity in committing vastly greater sums to perpetuate the conflict in Ukraine. Should this simplified rendition still prove too conceptually demanding, I am prepared to compose it in words of one syllable.
4·8 hours agoYeah for sure, I do think it’s only a matter of time before people figure out a new substrate. It’s really just a matter of allocating time and resources to the task, and that’s where state level planning comes in.
it’s a pretty big case right now
mfbc told them so, liberals don’t have thoughts of their own
it’s like the most pretentious thing you could do online
The EU is a kakistocracy.
I wasn’t aware the the EU was at war.
lmfao imagine trotting out mbfc like it means anything you terminal online lib 🤣
Remember how the EU refused to approve any bailouts for Greece, an EU member, after 2008 crisis.
It’s like saying silicon chips being orders of magnitude faster than vacuum tubes sounds too good to be true. Different substrate will have fundamentally different properties from silicon.
That’s the scientific method version. Here we’re talking about transformation of quantity into quality. :)