Just curious post: If you were forced to....

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Wheel Gun

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,070
Reaction score
124
Location
Formerly EdmondMember
Tough one. I've lived on both coasts and neither would be my choice as an optimal place to live. If one had the money to be a little selective and wasn't tied to a large city, one could find a place on either coast that would give a good quality of life. I'm pretty fed up with the shallowness of West Coast culture, so today, I'd probably opt for the East Coast. But, it could go either way.
 

7stw

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
289
Location
Piedmont
Couldn't do the east coast at all. I'm as far south and east as I ever want to be. I will never live east of I35 ever agin. And if I had to do one it would be Oregon as well to many libtard's in comifonia for me. Or alaska. But I'd prefer the Ely valley area of Nevada will most likely retire there.


Sent from NSA wire tapped device.
 

Old Fart

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
22,400
Reaction score
6
Location
XXX
I heard somewhere that something like 75-80% of the population lives within 30 miles of a ocean.
Seems reasonable, but the flocks of nutburgers who ended up on the ocean coast puts me off.
I will say after all my travels the golden coast up in Oregon would be hard to beat.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom