NotHereToPlayGames

YOU POSTING TOPICS (RUSSIA) OF PMS VIOLATES FORUM RULES. PERIOD. I'M DONE HERE! You always "toe the line" and are VERY GOOD AT IT.

Your thread regarding Russian Disagreements via PM violates forum rules. Please remove.

NO! Not publicly! YES! THREE times in the last five years alone! Satisfied?

I have to also disagree with raising minimum wage. Here in the States, we have a FEDERAL minimum wage - THAT NEEDS ABOLISHED. What would help is that every STATE had their OWN minimum wage !!! California and New York have a very HIGH cost-of-living. Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Iowa, N/S Dakota, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Nebraska all have a very LOW cost-of-living. Having the same EXACT minimum wage in California that you have in Arkansas is just plain STUPID. I also submit that MINIMUM WAGE is a TEENAGE PROBLEM !!! Unsympathetic? No, not really! If you are in your 30s, 40s, or 50s and earning MINIMUM WAGE, then that is YOUR FAULT for working the same jobs that TEENAGERS WORK !!!

I personally disagree with universal healthcare. BUT there *IS* a case to be made that it would "improve" quality of life in America. I am "biased" AGAINST universal healthcare and have seen just as many documentaries AGAINST it as I have seen for it. I *FIRMLY* support healthcare that is *RISK-BASED* !!! If you smoke, you pay a HIGHER PREMIUM - *PERIOD*. If you drink alcohol, you pay a HIGHER PREMIUM - *PERIOD*. If you are diabetic, you pay a HIGHER PREMIUM - *PERIOD*. Universal healthcare wants to treat everybody as "equals" - F Dat! If you are HIGH-RISK, then you either pay a HIGHER PREMIUM or you DIE YOUNG, the choice is yours. Unsympathetic? MAYBE. But we have PHILANTHROPISTS that can pay the way for those that cannot "afford" their HIGHER PREMIUM. We have PHILANTHROPISTS that can pay for your infant/child/toddler with life-threatening conditions. If you are a homeless drug addict and DO NOT WANT to clean yourself up for a free place to sleep at night (there are millions of them, but you must WANT to sober up to qualify as a resident!), then TO H WITH YA, the world is better off "without you". Unsympathetic? MAYBE. But I know for d#mn sure that I AM NOT A BURDEN ON THEM and neither should THEY BE A BURDEN ON ME !!! CARRY YOUR OWN WEIGHT !!! Learn from mistakes, be sympathetic and assume that a first or second strike is just that, a mistake, but there comes a point where ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, you do not throw good money after bad. Unsympatheic? NO! NOT IN THE LEAST! Not when the "money" paying for the DEADBEATS is taxes redirected from MORE NOBLE OF CAUSES. H#ll, for that matter, maybe, JUST MAYBE, the "money" spent on the DEADBEATS here in America is better served on "this thread topic" (climate change). You decide!

AGREE, AGREE, AGREE !!! But it's also RELATIVE. The "covid generation" is HURTING BIG TIME right now (those that were forced into "home-learning" and unable to attend their final year of high school). This has actually *HELPED ME* "much more" then the amount that it has *hurt them*. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. Trust me! Companies are much bigger into "employee retention" instead of hiring anyone from the "covid generation". Good for me. Bad for them. It's all relative. Retention is the new Recruitment. Companies no longer want to hire just-graduated college kids. It's more cost-effective to pay your talent and pay them well so that they STAY. I feel bad for the "generations behind me". Will things get better? I hope so! For THEIR sake. Me doing better should not come at the cost of them doing worse. But then there are days where I have *ZERO* sympathy towards the "generations behind me". ADDICTED TO THEIR PHONE so much that you can *NOT* get an "honest day's work" out of them !!! Work Hard! And you do great in America. Play on your phone all day, then NOT MY PROBLEM if that "addiction" is HOLDING YOU BACK. But YES! AGREED! Quality of life in American *IS* getting worse. Especially for those addicted to phones, games, alcohol, Mary Jane, opioids, et cetera. The more "they" keep doing this to themselves (and yes, many CHOOSE the addict-lifestyle and do NOT want "out of it", not sure if that's a minority or a majority), the better MY life becomes. IT'S ALL RELATIVE.

I will PM you. This is technically none of your business, but sure, I'll answer in a PM. With the reminder Forum Rule - 7.d Posting the contents of a private message (PM) in the public forum, for any reason, is expressly prohibited. Posting the contents of a PM in any public thread will result in an immediate ban. If this occurs, please contact any moderator via the "report" button at the bottom-left of the post.

I'm done here. For one, that's TOO MANY posts where you ego-chest-pound dating profiles/apps. For two, "bad air doesn't come here" is just so narrow-focused and misguided that I "have no comment" outside of "So what, the tree-covered mountain in CHINA will NEVER put CHINA at the top of any Most Eco-Friendly countries and NOR DOES THE WIND IN YOUR SMALL AREA OF FRANCE, a country that is NOT DOING SO WELL at meeting climate agreements even NAMED AFTER one of its most popular tourist-attraction cities". Your arguments are subjective versus fact-based. Start showing FACTS from renown global sources regarding "bad air doesn't come here" and we may possibly resume this "discussion". But at this point, I DOUBT IT, it's just gonna keep reverting to DATING PROFILES.

Doesn't matter, in my opinion. Pollution is ranked by country and France is doing worse then USA. It's that simple. There are very VERY likely cities/towns here in the USA (I may even live in one of them!) that have the *LEAST* amount of pollution, be it per square mile or be it per capita, but they do NOT get "special recognition" if they are part of a State with massive pollution. Pollution is pollution, it "diffuses" across all of the State, across all of France, et cetera. NONE OF US LIVE IN A VACUUM. France is a high-pollutant country, *overall*. So is the USA. So is Canada. So is Mexico. So is China. I cannot scour the country of China and pick an awesome tree-covered mountain and claim China is "very special, cool, fine, and dandy" based on the climate of that tree-covered mountain.

It's not working. France (and the US, in all fairness) EXCEEDS WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GUIDELINES ON POLLUTION CONCENTRATION https://www.iqair.com/us/world-most-polluted-countries I basically have to assume that "pollution" and "toxins" are one-in-the-same. Seems a reasonable assumption. France is #99 on the list of most polluted countries. USA is not much better, but at #102 the USA can claim to be doing BETTER than France. But what is *MORE* important as far as this list goes (to me anyway) is that Canada is #93 and Mexico is #46. I'll say it again, IT'S ALL RELATIVE.

Also, something tells me that what "eco-friendly" homes 'look like' is the LOS ANGELES WILDFIRES last month. I'm betting (just knowing California compared to the rest of the US) that each and every one of those burnt-to-ashes homes was "eco-friendly", right down to the city-controlled water supplies bottlenecked in the name of "climate change conservation". Climate Change Agenda == Good Climate Change Extremism == Bad IT'S ALL RELATIVE.

Unfortunately, that's not how our government works. We have "regulations" that must be met. Flame-retardant tests have to be passed on the materials used to build a house, et cetera. Lumber is "chemically treated". Yeah, probably TOXIC, no clue. Lead paint will last a very VERY long time. TOXIC, but also no longer allowed in US homes. Again, define "eco-friendly"? Is it using materials that last FOREVER so we don't have to cut down trees? Or is it using materials that an 18-month old baby can put in his/her mouth? Here in the US, we run a delicate balancing act between the two. And the "rules" change every few years.

Not really sure what you mean. My house isn't made of straw or clay or bamboo or mud holding sticks in place. My house is concrete, wood, iron, steel, fiberglass, asphalt, ceramic-coated mineral granules, gypsum plaster (ie, "drywall"). NOTHING in my house is "plastic". I've never heard of houses (roof or otherwise) made out of "plastic". Just how does one define "eco-friendly" ??? Don't cut any trees down for lumber? Use all plastic? I guess I'm "lost". My house is not made of "plastic". I'll even go so far as to add, "If being eco-friendly means that my house needs made out of plastic, THEN TO H#LL WITH ECO-FRIENDLY AND TO H#LL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE !!!" That's not my "sarcasm font", I DO NOT WANT A HOUSE MADE OUT OF PLASTIC !!! And yeah, "I could care less" if a PLASTIC house "saves the planet". Plastic houses, plastic cars, plastic jewelry - save that sh#t for BARBIE DOLL TOYS.

Here in the US, many (not me!) will add new doors to their house *NOT* because a new door is needed, but because the GOVERNMENT throws out a "tax credit" every few years just to update the door on your house !!! As part of some "home insulation efficiency" tax credit or something. That you are allowed to claim over, and over, and over, and over again - just add a new door and claim the tax credit. Americans are *STUPID*, no offense to my fellow patriarchs, but we really are a *STUPID* nation. Spend $800 (yeah, those ugly doors cost anywhere from $500 to $2000!) on a "door" that IS NOT ANY MORE THERMALLY-INSULATED THAN THE OLD DOOR, all to add $80 to $160 or so on your "tax refund".

18 y.o.'s here in the US are "worthless". But every genereration for the last 3000 years has said that about 18 y.o.'s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC3kBsRpkZQ Again, NOTHING CHANGES.

As I've stated in previous discussions, I REALLY DO NOT CARE THAT YOU DATE *KIDS* HALF YOUR AGE, it is a bit CREEPY that you post about it so often here at MSFN !!! But hey, you go right ahead, nobody really cares about the ego-chest-pound. But to answer your question, NO, they were not "married", but that does NOT mean that they were not already in a relationship and if you like dating those that are already in a RELATIONSHIP, then either you or her is a CHEATER, by definition. If you WALK AWAY the moment you find out the "dating profile" LIED about BEING IN A RELATIONSHIP OR NOT, as many dating profiles *DO*, then you have my RESPECT for WALKING AWAY and *NOT* being a CHEATER. If, on the other hand, you "steal" 18yr olds from their like-aged boyfriends, then, well, you see why I would call that "cheating". You or her or both, I'll let your own conscience define that, 'cause as I already cited, I DO NOT CARE about your "player lifestyle". Have fun with it. What works for you is not what everybody else wants out of this world. But alas, TO EACH THEIR OWN.

Apologies if that is how it came across. My intent was that DATING APPS are FILLED with people already in a relationship and even already MARRIED. The numbers are so staggering that you cannot claim that you yourself, reliant on those dating apps, have had to arrive at a date and then walk away due to the person met via the dating app being ALREADY MARRIED, that is, "if you are not a cheater" then you walked away. If you just allowed her to "trade in" her current relationship, then you enabled HER to be a CHEATER. If you do not date others that are already IN A RELATIONSHIP, then under that and that alone, then, NO, you are not a cheater.

Far from. I'm set to retire within the next 5 years. While everybody else "my age" is waiting another 15 to 20! Or just admitting that they will "never retire". Again, IT'S ALL RELATIVE. People that "retire early" do so because they didn't buy new furnture every 5 years, because they didn't buy a new car every 2 years, because they didn't spend half their paycheck every week at bars, et cetera. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. YOU HAVE YOUR LIFE, I HAVE MINE. You do what you want to, I shall continue to do what I want to - it's been working out well for me! DO NOT CARE if you think the furniture in my living room makes me "poor" or not. I WILL NOT BE WORKING UNTIL THE DAY I DIE, and that defines me by my standards.

"Background of dating profile" furniture in the US as a barometer of poverty? You really are grasping at straws! All those "background of dating profile" pictures really reveal is the dating pool. And as I have already stated, the US HAS BECOME A CESSPOOL OF DRUG ADDICTS, I'm confident that those "dating profile" REVEAL THE SAME CESSPOOL. IF YOU WANT THEM, YOU CAN HAVE THEM! Last I heard (though no, I am not part of that "scene"), many DATING PROFILES HERE IN THE US ARE MARRIED, again, you can have them. A quick internet search indicates 65.3% of Tinder profiles are "in a relationship or even MARRIED". Again, you can have them. Cheaters like to date cheaters. Trade in every other month. Keep it exciting. That's what you want, that's not what everybody wants. A quick internet search indicates only 30% for "dating apps" in general. So maybe it's just a Tinder "problem" or "advantage", your POV is not the only POV on the planet. I really cannot speak towards furniture here in the US. Everybody, and I do mean *EVERYBODY*, prioritizes just what they want to spend small or large portions of their income on. I've owned the same exact furniture that I bought on a 17yr old income when I moved out at 17yrs old. I still have the same EXACT furniture. The waterbed now holds a mattress instead. But it's the same exact furniture from when I bought it at 17yrs old. To each their own. Some folks like to trade cars every two years, "vanity of vanities" to always 'be seen' in something *NEW*. To each their own. Some folks do "out with the old, in with the new" regarding furniture. Everbody has their own priority. It's not for YOU (or ME) to decide everyone's PRIORITIES IN LIFE. I guess I'm doing okay, my furniture is *REAL* and *SOLID* and *WOODEN*. Not Ikea particle board and glue and cheap-import fabric. Everybody is "entitled" to prioritize their own spending. But YOU ARE CORRECT, the last thing I want in my living room is "Ikea Furniture" (no offense to the Swedish company Ikea). I'm saying you are RIGHT in that regard, folks that buy NEW furniture instead of OLD "get what they pay for" and most of the NEW stuff is crapified, cheap, and plastic. Then that "new" won't last but 4 to 5 years and needs REPLACED - with another round of crapified, cheap, and plastic.

BINGO! Never claimed it was. What I have been claiming, or trying to, is that NOTHING CHANGES. I can drop myself in the 50s, 80s, 2020s and really not feel any different socio-economically. NOTHING CHANGES. If anything "has changed", in my humble opinion, it's the sheer magnituge of the "have nots" thinking that the "haves" OWE THEM just for them "existing". They do not owe me anythying. I do not owe them anything. Live and let live. But don't expect handouts from others. CARRY YOUR OWN WEIGHT. Doesn't really seem like too much to ask.

What a TERRIBLE "gauge". But go for it, lol.

NIGERIA is a country "getting poorer". EIGHT PERCENT bump from 2018 to 2023 is TWICE THE NARROW RANGE OF HERE IN THE USA! Nigieria is "richer" than they were in 1985 through 2003, but "richer" and "poorer" really is (as I have been saying all along) "relative". The US is not getting "poorer". The US's 4% NARROW RANGE is something MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD would BEG FOR (pun intended). https://intelpoint.co/blogs/nigerias-poverty-rate-trend-from1960-to-2024/

You're BOTH WRONG, so I don't know why you are "thanking" someboby that AGREES with you but is WRONG. The US is NOT becoming "poorer". That's the problem with MSFN. We all just gang-hang with folks we "agree" with, nobody really ever LEARNS anything, we all just preach to the choir of our gang-hang posse. I can only find a chart dating back to 1990, but the REALITY is that the US poverty rate fluctuates between 15% and 11% and the US is *NOT POORER*. YOU GUYS WANT TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THE US POVERTY RATE IS 20, 30, 40, 80 PERCENT AND THAT IS JUST SIMPLY FLATOUT WRONG AND PROPAGANDA. As I've stated, NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED. 11% to 15% is a very NARROW range. THE US IS NOT GETTING "POORER". BUT NO! IT'S NOT GETTING "RICHER" EITHER! https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/

They'll all be dead by 60. That makes me "happy".