|
|
View Poll Results: Which one do you pick? | |||
New Hampshire + $250,000 annual stipend |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
21 | 50.00% |
Kentucky + $310,500 annual stipend |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
20 | 47.62% |
Gosh, I can't decide. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 2.38% |
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#13 |
Sauntering Vaguely Downwards
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, Mo
Casino cash: $-660901
|
I really like both of those properties - both are beautiful and I like both homes quite a bit.
Going Kentucky though for a few reasons: A) While not enormous, there is a stipend difference that will add up over time. B) Raw acreage - no replacement for displacement, lads... C) Location/access - the Kentucky home gives you access to Lexington and Louisville (college towns are great) not to mention Cincinnati which is home to both an AFC football team AND a National League baseball team so I can get my sports fixes and occasionally see the Cardinals/Chiefs in person without burning precious vacation weeks. EDIT: I airmailed the ocean access in NH, but man, the North Atlantic is less 'ocean access' and more 'really F'ing cold waves access'. Apart from the views, I'm not sure what there is to really enjoy about going to a beach in New Hampshire. I'm probably wrong, though...
__________________
"If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags." |
Posts: 66,733
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|