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]
That's why I never moved there. Too many fuggas from Cali thinkin' their shit don't stink. My old man talks about carrying around a baseball bat to crack their skulls.
He's skipped that whole trip now though and is moving straight to gun ownership. I can't wait to visit him in prison being able to stay at his house without him in my shit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NewChief:
Pssst. She's a product of the Texas Dept. of Education. Don't worry, with a Texan as the Pres, we'll all soon be a little confused geographically.
There you go thinking again,,,,,actually I have only been in Tx 10 years, remember the flood of 93, well I transferred down here then. And I am a product of the Mo school system,,,,St. Joe Mo,,,:-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by DenverChief: :-) if Colorado were underwater, what would become of the surrounding states that had elevations of less than 14,000 ft?
Soon the water will come
and claim what is mine.
I must leave it behind,
and climb to a new place now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ENDelt260:
California does nothing except export assholes.
i]
California is full of people who have immigrated from other suck-ass states, not to mentio that Ca. produces like 13% of the GSP. Choose again. [Reply]
