by Amorphous Blob on October 16th, 2009

Amorphous Blob

Question

Help answer this question below.

Should the Kansas/Missouri border be moved about 10 miles east so that Kansas includes Kansas City, Missouri, like it should?

  • Like
  • Report

Answers. 11 helpful answers below.

  • by slothmister on October 16th, 2009

    slothmister

    Nope.

    Using similar logic, should they extent Washington State to include Washington DC??

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by debodun on October 16th, 2009

    debodun

    There's already a Kansas City, KS.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Bob on October 16th, 2009

    Bob

    i really like the confusion that it imposes: "i'm going to kansas city." "which one?" "umm ..." there are lots of cities that have crept over the border into the next state. although none i can think of have the name of the other state. another solution might be to change its name to "missouri city, missouri".

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot on October 16th, 2009

    Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot

    Oh yeah. Let's start a BORDER WAR!!! Them versus us. This is the USA and we should keep our historical quirks and not start another India vs. Pakistan situation about a silly city. It would be easier to just change the name of the city no?

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on October 16th, 2009

    Anonymous

    WHY should that be done, and who told you that Kansas City MO should be a part of Kansas?

    How far should the Missouri/Illinois border be moved, so that St. Louis and East St. Louis are combined into one state?

    +5

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Esteban-- Smartest Pumpkin on October 16th, 2009

    Esteban-- Smartest Pumpkin

    and why stop there, extend the state line 1700 miles west to include San Francisco and then south to include Dallas/Ft. Worth and east to include London, England.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Jacques on October 16th, 2009

    Jacques

    No, they should probably just build another Kansas City in Kansas, and admit they didn't have a clue what they were doing the first time round.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by weatherman taking week or so off on October 16th, 2009

    weatherman taking week or so off

    No. They should just be realistic and rename the Missouri side as Missouri City.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Rollie on October 16th, 2009

    Rollie

    No. Missouri probably couldn't stand to lose the tax revenue if it lost Kansas City.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by anonymous on October 16th, 2009

    anonymous

    We know what this is really about: the Chiefs. You're a baseball nut and you want you're own team.

    BTW, I'm outta points for ya.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Cyanotic Wasp on October 16th, 2009

    Cyanotic Wasp

    Isn't that what the New Madrid Fault is supposed to accomplish one of these fine days? Let's let God work in Its own time.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

You're reading Should the Kansas/Missouri border be moved about 10 miles east so that Kansas includes Kansas City, Missouri, like it should?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Kansas missouri city border
Longest keg stand
Miles from border to border in ks