So it looks as though we'd trade Vermont by just two votes over South Dakota to Canada for some Molson, a few hockey players, and a pack of caribou. Does anyone actually have a vendetta against Vermont? Idaho didn't get a single vote. Anyone have sentimental attachments to it?
As for South Carolina, (this one's for you, Meg), I only suggested we trade it because I'm thinking like a good sports team owner. In sports, if you have a good player who is in the final year of his contract and he don't seem likely to resign with your team, you try to trade him at the last minute so you can at least get a return on your investment in him. Since it's only a matter of time before South Carolina secedes, I figure we should at least get something in return for our investment there!
|
4 Cachinnations
i'm all for trading North Dakota, frankly. Vermont has good syrup, and having visited SC, I can attest that it is part of the true South. And as a Southerner born and raised, you can't turn your back on the DURTY SOUTH!!!!
TAKE THAT MINOT!!!!
Posted on 6/17/2006
Ok, so we've got a lot of freaks moving into the state. Dude, you're living in Waco! And we all know that area has had it's own fair share of imported, crazy, religious zealots.
And yes, we do have a strong record of succession. What can I say...we're all pretty proud, stubborn people. Perhaps second only to the state hysteria in Texas. I just don't think Texans have a lot of room to talk on this one.
Posted on 6/17/2006
I'm quite attached to Idaho potatoes.
Posted on 6/17/2006
Considering the price of some Molson, a few hockey players, and a herd (not pack) of caribou, Vermont would be a fair trade, considering the size and value of the land. South Dakota already has caribou...a caribou show in fact, and some good-lookin' farmboys that play hockey. (I've met them.)
Posted on 6/17/2006