Why does the OP want a merged Dakotas, what’s in it for him?
And can we merge the north and south hemisphere, perhaps form one big ball.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I don’t think the OP goes far enough.
Do we really need any Dakotas?
[/QUOTE]
You have to consider the international implications of that statement.
Take a look at the map. The Dakotas serve the valuable function of being the foundation for Saskatchewan’s south-east corner. Take out the Dakotas, and what happens?
Saskatchewan tips sideways, smashing into Manitoba, and it’s corner falls down into the Dakota-less void. and the damage to the south-east corner would probably mean a tear in the Saskatchewan boundary, and hapless Saskatchewanians would start tumbling down, landing hard on Nebraska’s northern boundary.
Plus, when Saskatchewan tips over, its south-western corner rips loose from its foundation on Monatan, probably doing extensive damage to Montana and throwing countless Montanans hither and yon in southern Alberta.
It would be chaos! No, keep the Dakotas where they are. Us Saskatchewanians like them, just where they are.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Why does the OP want a merged Dakotas, what’s in it for him?
[/QUOTE]
I’ll let this gentleman answer…
[QUOTE=Albert Einstein]
“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Miller]
I don’t think the OP goes far enough.
Do we really need any Dakotas?
[/QUOTE]
Having grown up in the southern one, I can honestly say “no.”
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
The only parts of Virginia south of most of West Virginia are the relatively less populated areas of the thin stretch that forms the tail of the state. […]Now, if you want to call it NorthWest Virginia, that might be best of all. 
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t they almost vote to call it Kanawha, anyway?
What about renaming North Dakota Central Dakota and make Canada nervous :eek:
Having lived in the Northern one for 3 1/2 years, I can also chime in with the chorus: “Hell No!” Besides, there’s this:
Having just had the lamest Congress in the history of these United States (productivitywise), I highly doubt anyone is going to give a second thought to the bureaucratic hassle of merging two states. I mean, we’ve got bigger problems to deal with: the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, the War on Poverty, the War on Illiteracy, the War on Obesity. . . just too many damn wars to fight.
Tripler
Yeah, that last Congress? Pretty lame if you ask me.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
What about renaming North Dakota Central Dakota and make Canada nervous :eek:
[/QUOTE]
It is time for North Dakota to assume its destiny as South Saskatchewan.
In a similar vein, I have long advocated the merger of Kansas and Arkansas into “Arkansaskansas.”
[QUOTE=pravnik]
In a similar vein, I have long advocated the merger of Kansas and Arkansas into “Arkansaskansas.”
[/QUOTE]
Then it would be Ar-Kansas[sup]2[/sup].
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Then it would be Ar-Kansas[sup]2[/sup].
[/QUOTE]
Ar-Kansas[sup]2[/sup] the Golden?
[QUOTE=pravnik]
In a similar vein, I have long advocated the merger of Kansas and Arkansas into “Arkansaskansas.”
[/QUOTE]
I prefer Kansasarkansas.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Ar-Kansas[sup]2[/sup] the Golden?
[/QUOTE]
Oh great. Now they’ll try invading California, be thrown back by the Gods of the Sierra, and the resulting tectonic cataclysm will split the continent.
On the good side, Regina will get some nice beachfront property.