NotHereToPlayGames

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".

Did I ever tell you about the Toyota Prius owner that lives on my street? He would SNUB HIS NOSE every time I drove by !!! I finally CONFRONTED the POS and asked him what he has against me. We've been rather GREAT neighbors ever since - once he realized that my 263863998 cars only drive a combined 3,000 miles per year and one fillup at the gas station lasts three or four MONTHS to the 5 or 6 *DAYS* that he fills up his Prius every week! So again, "my friend", IT'S ALL RELATIVE. Owning 263863998 cars is NOT what is bad for the climate. Owning a Prius and CONSUMING twenty times more gasoline but then snubbing your nose at non-Prius owners is what is KILLING THE CLIMATE. It's always the people that drive Prius's or Tesla's that are PART OF THE PROBLEM [CONSUME MORE BUT ACT LIKE THEY ARE SAVING THE PLANET] instead of being part of the SOLUTION [CONSUME LESS AND JUST MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS]. It's all relative.

I fail to see your point. 37 million is just what percentage of total US Population? And is that percentage SMALLER or LARGER than a decade ago? Two decades ago? Three decades ago? That's where I am coming from! 10% of the people I knew three decades ago were "poverty". 10% of the people I knew one decade ago were "poverty". But 10% is 10%. Not POORER. But not RICHER either. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

For one, NO!, I am NOT a Boomer! I don't say that to say "I'm not that old", I say that to say that while I am not that old, I see 'that generation' as SPOON-FED GIVE-ME GIVE-ME GIVE-ME "entitled class". And yeah!, "they" say the same about my generation, "they" say the same about the generation behind me, "they" say the same about the generation behind the generation behind me, et cetera. I know a lot of Boomers, "nothing is their fault". Don't get me started, lol... Re: "Has the USA become a poorer country? I don't really know, to be honest." I think you misread what I was trying to say. I do well for myself, I believe in MERIT-BASED CAREERS and have always done well for myself. No "union" lifting me up, I climb and promote and compete and do well. I did well in my 20s. I did well in my 30s. I did well in my 40s. And I'm doing well in my early 50s. I've done better than many around me, the vast majority of my own family included, et cetera. So when I say "I DO NOT KNOW IF THE USA HAS BECOME POORER", it is from the frame of reference that I had 100 friends in my 20s, I did better than 80 of them. I had 100 friends in my 30s, I did better than 80 of them. I had 100 friends in my 40s, I did better than 80 of them. I have 50 friends in my 50s, I am doing better than 40 of them (same exact percentage as 100/80) - but the beer-drinkers and drug-users are STARTING TO DIE OFF! So from my frame of reference, NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN DECADES. I'm doing better than the same exact percentage that I was doing better than in my 20s, 30s, 40s, ... So no, I don't KNOW if the country is poorer today than it was 40 years ago! I'll do some research over the weekend. What I do know is that there are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS "haves" versus "have nots" and BOTH of the two groups think they are "entitled". So I just try to look out for MYSELF and that has served me well... In comparison to 80% of the people I know now, compared to 80% of the people I knew then... And it will be the same exact 80% a decade from now, just that the numbers will be smaller, but the percentage will be the same, due to DRUG ADDICTIONS killing 'em all off one by one... To *ME*, NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN DECADES. I'm not climbing any higher, but I'm not falling behind into poverty. NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN DECADES. So *NO*, to me, the coutry isn't "poorer". We do have a helluvalot more "dead beats". But the deadbeats that I know, and I know a lot of them, DO NOT THINK OF THEMSELVES AS DEAD BEATS. They think of themselves as "entitled" for MY taxes to pay THEIR subsidized living. Only 90 seconds, you'll get the idea -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC3kBsRpkZQ

Find just ONE and feel free to screencap herein! I do not generally disclose that level of detail online so I do think you have me confused with someone else. I do not disclose what STATE that I live in! Admins/Moderators would be violating ethics to disclose! I really doubt, HIGHLY!, that I have ever disclosed what STATE (out of 50!) that I live in. I live in *the* USA. And I may have even narrowed it down to "midwest" (that's basically 12, 13, or 14 States, depending on which map you ask). Has the USA become a poorer country? I don't really know, to be honest. I have always earned above-average since the age of 21 or so and I do okay. So it's all kind of "relative". My "friends" went one way at 21yrs old, I went another! Hint- Drinking Age here in the US! I DO NOT DRINK AND I DO NOT SMOKE. "Two roads divereged in a yellow wood... I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." ~ Robert Frost What I have noticed over the DECADES is that the USA has become a DRUG ADDICT NATION. And that strains our society much more than other countries! And (to bring it back on-topic), as an AMERICAN CITIZEN, would I prefer our Government spend money on CLIMATE CHANGE ??? Or would I prefer our Government spend money on DRUG ADDICTION of its citizens ??? Because it has become clearer and clearer over the past DECADES is that we can NO LONGER just "throw good money after bad". Climate change dollars = good. To an extent! Preventing this 'once great' nation from becoming more and more and more of nothing but a gigantic CESSPOOL of drug addicts = BETTER. In my not-so-humble don't-drink/don't-smoke POV.

During winter and rain, I do drive something that "passes inspection" (one is 22yrs old, but it does pass "current inspections"). But the other 200 days or so out of 365 per year, I drive vehicles that are EXEMPT from "inspections". Two of them do not even have seat belts and "the law" can NOT force me to install them! At least not in my State of the USA. I do not live in California. Exact State is not really anybody's business, lol. Here in the USA, if you can afford to own a '32 Model A, a '56 Bel Air, or a '68 Fastback, you are EXEMPT from "inspections". None of those are what I drive, BTW, lol. I can pretty much do anything I want to "my vehicles", ranging from 1955 to 1990 then a '07 custom "chopper", without being "beholden" to 'inspections'. BUT... I have to do all the work myself! I cannot so much as even have a muffler installed at a "muffler shop" because the vehicles do not have a catalytic converter. As long as I can keep them on the road, without relying on "professional shops" to do any of the work, then I can pretty much violate any-and-all "EPA Guidelines" and I don't even face any "fines" for driving them. What floors me, as far as that goes, are what I shall call "paycheck to paycheck" folks that drive vehicles with rust and dents all over the place and white plumes of smoke bellowing from the exhaust at idle! Those I wish were FINED for using the same roads as I do. But as far as the EPA is concerned, are they really any different than my no-catalytic-era Fair Weather Rides ???

Sorry, but no they do not. Every G20 country is FAILING TO MEET THE PARIS AGREEMENT (per a 2021 report called the "Climate Action Tracker (CAT)"). I grant that a lot can happen since 2021, but if France failed in 2021, then France also failed in 2022, 2023, 2024, and now fails in 2025. G20 Countries == 1) Argentina, 2) Australia, 3) Brazil, 4) Canada, 5) China, 6) France, 7) Germany, 8) India, 9) Indonesia, 10) Italy, 11) Japan, 12) Mexico, 13) Russia, 14) Saudi Arabia, 15) South Africa, 16) South Korea, 17) Turkey, 18) United Kingdom, and 19) United States plus the "regional bodies" of 20) The European Union, and 21) The African Union. Yes, this is correct, G20 is not really "twenty". I admit confusion though! Is France "France" ??? Or is France "The European Union" ??? The most-recent "tracker" I can find is September of 2021 - https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/global-update-september-2021/ Where France is doing no better than Chile, the EU, Germany, Japan, Norway, Peru, South Africa, Switzerland, and the USA. This is my confusion - why not list France separate from "The EU" ??? All doing better than countries like Canada, Mexico, China, India, Australia. Which in turn are doing better than Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Thailand. But none doing nearly as well as UK, Morocco, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Costa Rica, and Nepal. No surprise to anyone, I'm sure, but Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland and Viet Nam have all failed to lift ambition at all. They have submitted the same or even less ambitious 2030 targets than they had put forward in 2015. If anything, I would put "France" in the same boat as the USA. ie, "France" very likely is doing BETTER than "The EU" but France is just lumped in with the rest of "The EU" !!! The USA has the same thing going on! We are being "lumped in" with CANADA and MEXICO and unless the USA rocks that boat, then the USA only "enables" CANADA and MEXICO to 'hold us back'. Technically, the USA is "doing better" than CANADA and MEXICO. But how many countries OUTSIDE of USA, Canada, and Mexico KNOW THAT ???

I really DO NOT CARE about your (and others here at MSFN) GRAMMAR POLICE TACTICS. It gets OLD and I wish "members" could be BANNED for being GRAMMER POLICE. But alas, "it isn't against forum rules".

I'm not sure I follow. It's really not as "simplistic" as agreeing with the "agenda" of the Paris Agreement or not. And it is not like the USA and its companies are now off-the-hook for reporting greenhouse gas inventories because the USA remains in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC very much OVERLAP EACH OTHER. The UNFCCC, as of 2016, essentially, implements the Paris Agreement !!! In fact, one entity (the Paris Agreement) does not exist without the other entity (UNFCCC). UNFCCC supercedes the Paris Agreeement. The USA has not withdrawn from the UNFCCC. Such a withdrawal from UNFCC would require 2/3 majority senate vote. US Politics is far FAR too DIVIDED to ever think a 2/3 majority is possible.