If you could replace one state completely with water, which state would be best? - Page 11

Assume that the state becomes a very large lake, bay, inlet, or other body of water - fresh water if it's inland, salt water if it's coastal.

I'd have to go with Nevada. If the state was too far north, it would create a lot of snow and ice and stuff, which might not be good. Nevada would create a lot of humidity and extra farmland in Arizona, Utah, and eastern California, which would greatly increase American productivity and prosperity.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by loochy:
Hey, it's one of those irrational Kansas haters that I can't understand. Everything to the right of an arbitrary man made line is awesome and everything to the left is complete shit. :-)

I lived in Kansas for more than long enough to hold the opinion I do of it.

Also... the point of the thread was to put one state under water. The fact I chose Kansas doesn't mean that "everything is awesome" in Missouri. It just means I hate the ever loving fuck out of the state of Kansas.

You don't need to understand WHY I hate that place. Just that I do.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Megatron96:
"Conferate"? Wth is that?:-)

Kotter is clearly deep into his cups, his drink of "cholce" is clearly working him over...
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Not a whole state, but SoCal. Well, everything from SF south to the border. Wouldn't have water problems in the West if not for that shithole.

And 90% of that water, give or take, goes to agriculture that is shipped all over the country.

Especially salad bowl stuff that is out of season in other parts of the country.
[Reply]

Definitely ohio.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
And 90% of that water, give or take, goes to agriculture that is shipped all over the country.

Especially salad bowl stuff that is out of season in other parts of the country.

Yah. Stupid crap like avocados and almonds and whatever in the Imperial Valley.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Easy 6:
Illinois

Sure it would displace me and my family, but at least Chicago would be destroyed

I don't understand the hate on Chicago. Everytime I've been there I have a delightful time. Beautiful downtown area too.
[Reply]

I'm going to go with Connecticut. That state sucks and nobody would give a shit.

At least states like Kansas grows food and shit.
[Reply]

Oklahoma would be cool, I’d only have about a 45 minute drive to the lake.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Damn, a Slayer sighting.

If you don't feel old enough he'll soon be of the right age to be a grandpa himself.
[Reply]

Nevada

It needs the water.
[Reply]

Probably Texas. As an Oklahoman it would be a strategic advantage to have a lake between us and old mehico. And a great lake would be cool here. Plenty of water to irrigated and boat on.
[Reply]

kansas.

Centrally located. East of the mountains. Would irrigate all the surrounding states and keep the breadbasket pumping.

Until we polluted it and wasted it turning deserts into golf course havens, at least.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by listopencil:
Oklahoma. Without a doubt, Oklahoma. That state is absolutely worthless. Go look at it on a map. It's just a big hand, warning you to go to some other place. There's a reason it was the last state of the 48 to be created. No one wanted that land. Even the Indians just left. It should be underwater. Oklahoma is the one.

This is a close second to kansas for me, for all the same reasons listed. Centrally located. Feeds lots of plains spaces in the surrounding areas.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
All former Confederate states plus any other “red” states who remain white Christian ‘nationalists’….:-)

You shouldn't be allowed to teach children.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
kansas.

Centrally located. East of the mountains. Would irrigate all the surrounding states and keep the breadbasket pumping.

Until we polluted it and wasted it turning deserts into golf course havens, at least.

The Chiefs and Royals can’t play underwater though!
[Reply]