Should the Kansas/Missouri border be moved about 10 miles east so that Kansas includes Kansas City, Missouri, like it should?
by 
Amorphous Blob is thrilled to have hair
ANSWERS: 11
-
No. They should just be realistic and rename the Missouri side as Missouri City.
-
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".
-
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.
-
There's already a Kansas City, KS.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
Nope. Using similar logic, should they extent Washington State to include Washington DC??
-
No. Missouri probably couldn't stand to lose the tax revenue if it lost Kansas City.
-
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.
-
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.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC