Overland Park mom is Mrs. Kansas U.S.

Overland Park mom is Mrs. Kansas U.S.

There are 60 comments on the St. Louis Nursing News story from Jul 19, 2009, titled Overland Park mom is Mrs. Kansas U.S.. In it, St. Louis Nursing News reports that:

An Overland Park woman has been crowned 2009 Mrs. Kansas United States. Cydney Boler , who captured the title at the state pageant in Salina, now will advance to the national pageant in Las Vegas this week.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at St. Louis Nursing News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#41 Oct 10, 2009
itsME wrote:
DRK,
It may appear as though I am delaying or procrastinating - but I'm not.
I couldn't prevent myself from writing to Marie.
P.S.- I left you a little somethin over on the B'nB Block YOmumma thread

CHOW
;D
drk

Concord, NH

#42 Oct 10, 2009
Still waiting
Oh My

Overland Park, KS

#43 Oct 11, 2009
Hey kid, you got in naked pictures of your mom or aunt? If not, you want to buy some???
Cody wrote:
Hello Im so not lying but my mom is mrs johnson county. Then My Aunt is Mrs Kansas if u dont believe me then if u see mrs kansas or johnson county u might see me im 11
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#44 Oct 11, 2009
Oh My wrote:
Hey kid, you got in naked pictures of your mom or aunt? If not, you want to buy some???
<quoted text>
If this person really is 11 - you can, and should, get into trouble for this.
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#45 Oct 13, 2009
itsME wrote:
Marie,

Limbaughs presence as a judge will turn this historically wholesome and virtuous event into something almost parallel to some creep holding a young girl hostage as his personal sex slave?
The Miss America pageant will be this year, what it has been in all prior years, the only change will be Limbaugh.
You drew this parallel - not me.

BTW - you still haven't answered this drk person. And you complain that Obama can't finish anything.
(((:/)))- That was my impersonation of Dick Cheney shaking his head. <GOL>
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#46 Oct 13, 2009
It looked better before it posted.
itsME

Overland Park, KS

#47 Oct 13, 2009
Marie,

I know I haven't finished answering DRK.

We've been sick around here pretty much all weekend.

We could't make a dinner we had scheduled with eight others on Friday. Couldn't make a huge Wiener Roast, tons of food, with a group of friends
on Sat. and we had already paid for it.

And then we were not able to make the Sunday worship service yesterday.

I've been down that road before, and I've found that most people who accuse others of being close-minded are THE most close-minded people around.

I've also found that those who accuse others of close-mindedness are of the liberal persuasion. Not all.

When they disagree with me, they're not close-minded, but when I disagree with them I am the close-minded king.

Add to that, I have so many things I have to do in the next several days, I probably won't be on here.
itsME

Overland Park, KS

#48 Oct 13, 2009
To DRK,

You wrote:

"The theocratical meddling of churches on issues of state importance has COMPLETELY GOTTEN OUT OF CONTROL. An example I will use is Prop 8 in California. If some church demoniations are going to be actively involved in political issues they should pay taxes. PERIOD."

To that I responded, with a very brief comment concerning the historical role of the church's
influence on government or state issues.

But you wrote back: "OK, I didn't know we were looking at this from a distinct historical perspective."

I don't know why we shouldn't, or for that matter, how we can discuss the issues intelligently without starting from a point of historical acceptance.

For instance, one can not say with any sense of accuracy:

"The theocratical meddling of churches (which means Christians) on issues of state importance has completely gotten out of control," when history reveals that elected politicians conferred with clergy prior to enacting any form of legislation pertaining to state issues.

The church's involvement was once a "10."
Now it is, maybe, a "2."

Which emphatically points out just how impotent the church (Christians) are today, compared to the church's historical relationship with government.

You used Prop 8 as an illustration.

You wrote concerning that:
"If some church demoniations are going to be actively involved in political issues they should pay taxes. PERIOD."

To continue with your illustration, those who opposed Prop 8, do not see "same sex marriage" and a political issue.
And while it may be an issue the state had placed on the ballot, still does not make that exclusivley political.

To the people who make up the church it is a sin issue, a moral issue, and others were opposing something they considered culturally depraved.

Also consider, those who opposed Prop 8, were not "only" the church, or the people who make up the church, but MANY others who never cross the threshold of the place we call church.

What you refer to as "the church," is simply people. People are the church.

We have all become accustomed to referring to a building down the street, or a recognized denomination, as "the CHURCH."

That is not the church. The "people" are the church.

My family does'nt go to church on Sunday, even though most refer to it as such, we go to a worship service.

And while church's (denominations) have been intimidated for years, by the extortionary politics of losing their tax-exempt status, that simply was a means by which government could easily silence them.

If you want to remove the tax-exempt status, then start a political movement, to do just that.

Just think first of what you would be doing.

The tax-exempt status was granted because the CHURCH, many times, is the safety net for those who have little or nothing.

Remove the tax-exempt status and you also remove:

The majority of homeless shelters across America, Catholic Charities, many other religious charities, the majority of Hospice programs, Salvation Army and their Drug and Alcohol rehab programs, a ton of medical missionaries sponsored by church's all over the world, many hospitals and small clinics throughout America, and a plethora of food banks, for the needy, located in virtually every small town and large city. There's much more.
Marie

Overland Park, KS

#49 Oct 13, 2009
itsME wrote:
Marie,
I know I haven't finished answering DRK.
We've been sick around here pretty much all weekend.
We could't make a dinner we had scheduled with eight others on Friday. Couldn't make a huge Wiener Roast, tons of food, with a group of friends
on Sat. and we had already paid for it.
And then we were not able to make the Sunday worship service yesterday.
I've been down that road before, and I've found that most people who accuse others of being close-minded are THE most close-minded people around.
I've also found that those who accuse others of close-mindedness are of the liberal persuasion. Not all.
When they disagree with me, they're not close-minded, but when I disagree with them I am the close-minded king.
Add to that, I have so many things I have to do in the next several days, I probably won't be on here.
Just kidding. Try to be more open-minded about that. I kid !! I kid!!

Sorry you haven't been feeling well.
itsME

Overland Park, KS

#50 Oct 13, 2009
Marie,

I know you were kidding. So you know, I wasn't upset in the least.

And the Dick Cheney thingy made me smile.
It looked OK to me, even after you posted it.

I went on to respond some to DRK, since I knew I will have few hours to do this stuff coming up.

I plan to expand that which I wrote later on.

I think I've discovered the reason why things go south on these Topix forums.

This is "just" an illutration:
Bozo may write something, and I disagree, and I go on to explain why.
When I explain why, two others jump in, and one or both with at least some form of insult.

Bozo then Bozo comes back in agreement with the one posting the insult, and then follows with pretty much something similar to his first post, which suggests he's not going to give in one inch.

I then reply by repeting my first response and add an insult or two of my own.

Then there are two others who praise me for taking Bozo to task and kicking his butt.

Oh yeah, then they add an insult as well.

By the time there are two to three pages of comments, with a wall already having been established, it then becomes teams playing a word and insult game with each other.

Once in the gutter of uncivil discourse, even the curb seems unreachable when attempting to alter whatever rude or impolite inertia that's been established.

Marie

Overland Park, KS

#51 Oct 13, 2009
itsME wrote:
Marie,
I know you were kidding. So you know, I wasn't upset in the least.
And the Dick Cheney thingy made me smile.
It looked OK to me, even after you posted it.
I went on to respond some to DRK, since I knew I will have few hours to do this stuff coming up.
I plan to expand that which I wrote later on.
I think I've discovered the reason why things go south on these Topix forums.
This is "just" an illutration:
Bozo may write something, and I disagree, and I go on to explain why.
When I explain why, two others jump in, and one or both with at least some form of insult.
Bozo then Bozo comes back in agreement with the one posting the insult, and then follows with pretty much something similar to his first post, which suggests he's not going to give in one inch.
I then reply by repeting my first response and add an insult or two of my own.
Then there are two others who praise me for taking Bozo to task and kicking his butt.
Oh yeah, then they add an insult as well.
By the time there are two to three pages of comments, with a wall already having been established, it then becomes teams playing a word and insult game with each other.
Once in the gutter of uncivil discourse, even the curb seems unreachable when attempting to alter whatever rude or impolite inertia that's been established.
Well, it's been my experience that can happen to anyone, regardless of persuasion. I distinctly remember this when I first came on Topix, and could give you more recent examples of similar things happening to myself. But let's be honest, we all develop this habit once we become accustomed to the Topix environment. It's like jumping into a pool of cold water - at first it is feels really cold, but after awhile, you don't even notice. After awhile, you just start swinging in an attempt to keep warm. It's hard to stay cool and objective - especially when assumptions, premature conclusions, and insults seem to drive the wheels of Topix. It's generally more of an outlet for frustration than an avenue for real communication.
itsME

Overland Park, KS

#52 Oct 20, 2009
Marie,

I guess DRK gave up on me.

Sorry that happened.

I haven't been on here for one week.

I FEEL GOOD, DA DA NA NA NA NA NA!
JUST LIKE I KNEW I WOULD DA DA NA NA NA NA NA
OOOOH I FEEL GOOD DA DA NA NA NA NA NA
LIKE I KNEW I WOULD. DA DA NA NA NA NA NA
I FEEL GOOD DA DA..........
Please

Overland Park, KS

#54 Oct 27, 2009
The post from an 11 year old on here is ridiculous. Why would he post that he is related to these people? It's amazing what women will do for a little attention. Are they not getting it at home?
Please

Overland Park, KS

#55 Oct 27, 2009
Also, it's amazing what make up and photoshop can do.

“The sheep need protection.”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#56 Oct 27, 2009
Please gets a point. 11 year old. Zero.
drk

Concord, NH

#57 Oct 28, 2009
itsME wrote:
To DRK,
You wrote:
"Also consider, those who opposed Prop 8, were not "only" the church, or the people who make up the church, but MANY others who never cross the threshold of the place we call church.
What you refer to as "the church," is simply people. People are the church.
We have all become accustomed to referring to a building down the street, or a recognized denomination, as "the CHURCH."
That is not the church. The "people" are the church.
My family does'nt go to church on Sunday, even though most refer to it as such, we go to a worship service.
And while church's (denominations) have been intimidated for years, by the extortionary politics of losing their tax-exempt status, that simply was a means by which government could easily silence them.
If you want to remove the tax-exempt status, then start a political movement, to do just that.
Just think first of what you would be doing.
The tax-exempt status was granted because the CHURCH, many times, is the safety net for those who have little or nothing.
Remove the tax-exempt status and you also remove:
The majority of homeless shelters across America, Catholic Charities, many other religious charities, the majority of Hospice programs, Salvation Army and their Drug and Alcohol rehab programs, a ton of medical missionaries sponsored by church's all over the world, many hospitals and small clinics throughout America, and a plethora of food banks, for the needy, located in virtually every small town and large city. There's much more.
"Also consider, those who opposed Prop 8, were not "only" the church, or the people who make up the church, but MANY others who never cross the threshold of the place we call church.
What you refer to as "the church," is simply people. People are the church."
If a populace wants to deny a segement of a population their civil rights in the guise of "religion" then I feel sorry for them.

"The tax-exempt status was granted because the CHURCH, many times, is the safety net for those who have little or nothing.
Remove the tax-exempt status and you also remove:
The majority of homeless shelters across America, Catholic Charities, many other religious charities, the majority of Hospice programs, Salvation Army and their Drug and Alcohol rehab programs, a ton of medical missionaries sponsored by church's all over the world, many hospitals and small clinics throughout America, and a plethora of food banks, for the needy, located in virtually every small town and large city. There's much more"

While I agree that church denominations help out the disadvantaged and homeless you are engaging in broad-brushing. A plethora of non-profit and volunteer organizations that are not affiliated with any religion also help out an enormous amount of people. Also, I have never agreed with the stance of many church denominations of proselytizing in 3rd world countries. These people need economic development and educational stimului far greater than they need a greater amount of religiosity. The conversion of many of those in 3rd world countries just perpetuates poverty issues, especially since the Catholic Church has continually espoused the non-usage of contraception. This continues the spread of STDs and HIV. The populace then becomes more dependent on relief programs, church charity organizations and international aide. It is not a good cycle at all.
itsME

Overland Park, KS

#58 Oct 28, 2009
Drk,

Good to see you back.

You wrote:
"If a populace wants to deny a segement of a population their civil rights in the guise of "religion" then I feel sorry for them.

The people who take issue with same-sex marriage don't do that under the guise of religion. Their opposition is based on their convictions and principles and perhaps cultural history. Marriage between one-man and one-woman has been the traditional marriage for time immemorial.

I don't think anyone really cares if you pity them or not. It appears as though you have a far different world-view than many of those you find distasteful.

When I suggested to you that removing tax-exempt status from the church would affect the safety net that exists for the poor and needy.

You wote:
"While I agree that church denominations help out the disadvantaged and homeless you are engaging in broad-brushing. A plethora of non-profit and volunteer organizations that are not affiliated with any religion also help out an enormous amount of people."

You are correct there are many non-profit and volunteer organizations who also help an enormous amount.
However, Their numbers pale, PALE, in comparison to those of the religious community.

Two questions:
1) There are many illustration you could have used, other than Prop 8, I presume that must be an important issue to you. Are you gay?
2) You seem to have a dislike for anything or anyone affiliated with the church, and to be more specific, Christians. Is that an accurate observation?

You also wrote:
"Also, I have never agreed with the stance of many church denominations of proselytizing in 3rd world countries. These people need economic development and educational stimului far greater than they need a greater amount of religiosity."

Economic development and education are absolutley essential in 3rd world countries, however many - if not most of all missionaries provide food, medical treatment, and/or dental care.

I have a very good friend who has been in Thailand for 20 years with his family. He is a Christian missionary but he has set up stationary and mobile dental care facilities at the expense of several churches in America, including mine.

Truth is you don't have to agree with those who are in other countries telling others about the gosple of Christ.

They are there with the expressed permission from the host country. Bottom line is: your permission or agreement isn't needed.

And I am not sure why you raised that particular issue, since it has nothing at all to so with the church being tax-exempt.
drk

Concord, NH

#59 Oct 29, 2009
itsME wrote:
Here are some of my thoughts in regard to your questions.
"The people who take issue with same-sex marriage don't do that under the guise of religion. Their opposition is based on their convictions and principles and perhaps cultural history. Marriage between one-man and one-woman has been the traditional marriage for time immemorial.
I don't think anyone really cares if you pity them or not. It appears as though you have a far different world-view than many of those you find distasteful."

They may hold those viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that we should allow discriminatory practices to continue against a segment of the population. It really has NOTHING to do with religiosity, but more to do with tolerance and non-discrimination against a particular segment of the populace.
Here is a new update with regard to that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

"1) There are many illustration you could have used, other than Prop 8, I presume that must be an important issue to you. Are you gay?"

This is typical projection that is often used to divert from the issue at hand, and commonly used by partisan Republicans. To answer your rude and blunt question, no I am not gay. However, I know a friend who is. The point is, religious denomiations did exert considerable political influence with regard to the prop 8 EVEN CONSIDERING that many people who voted against the measure did so without regard to a prevailing theocratic belief system.

"2) You seem to have a dislike for anything or anyone affiliated with the church, and to be more specific, Christians. Is that an accurate observation?"

I have a globalist view with regard to religiosity. I am more spiritual and attend religious services occasionally. I live in a "progressive" community and we have lots of churches to choose from if one desires. I have done a plethora of volunteer work for the Unitarian Universalist church. However, it does bother me that many religious denominations are turning much more overtly political in nature. If I wanted to debate politics I would listen to the moronic talking heads on cable.

"I have a very good friend who has been in Thailand for 20 years with his family. He is a Christian missionary but he has set up stationary and mobile dental care facilities at the expense of several churches in America, including mine."
I give a lot of credit to your friend.

Relief efforts to provide ancillary support for improvements in dental, medical care, and health services are support measures that are needed in developing countries. Education and economic development with citiznery input is a key. Proselytizing and teaching against contraception in 3rd world countries only makes the populace more dependent on relief programs when jobs are few as well as food.
itsME

Overland Park, KS

#60 Oct 29, 2009
DRK,

You wrote:
"To clarify, I am extremely tired of ideologues arguing and the current level of vitriol in politics today."

Truthfully DRK, I do not want my Representative or Senators sitting around the campfire, holding hands with far-left wing wackos, singing Kumbaya.

Debate is what politics is all about. Differences in their approach, differences in direction, and convictions about holding to a strict constructionist view of our Constitution.

You shouldn't want the Kumbaya thing either.

Earlier you wrote:
"I have no problem with others who have extreme stances on issues, and I welcome open debates for a hopeful moderation of views."

Again, I find you in conflict with yourself, or just plain disingenuous.
You can't say in one breath you are extremely tired of ideologues arguing - and in the next say,
you have no problem with others who have extreme stances on issues.

You also wrote:
"With regard to open-mindedness, I am mostly open-minded on MANY issues BECAUSE I am always learning new viewpoints and the stances others take on issues."

At the moment, just based on a couple of issues, you DO NOT appear openminded on anything we've discussed.

I asked you a question you apparently took exception to, you responded:

"This is typical projection that is often used to divert from the issue at hand, and commonly used by partisan Republicans. To answer your rude and blunt question, no I am not gay. However, I know a friend who is."

I don't consider that an oft used projection to divert anything. I asked you a simple question and you felt the need to insinuate I was being rude and blunt, and you followed that with a slight insult implying I am a partisan Republican.

I am an independent, who was a republican.

If you thought I was rude, I'm sorry you got your wittle feelwings hurt. But I won't apologize for something because you are so sensitive you can't participate in anything but PC dialogue.

I WAS TOO BLUNT?? Are you serious?

Perhaps you could give me a lesson or two in how to dance around an issue, saying alot of words, but never speaking your mind.

My observation is you are rigid and not open-minded at all considering same-sex marriage and equally unchanging on the tax-exempt issue for churches who, accoring to you, cross the line by being politically involved.

My advice to you is, whenever you see that happening, just pick up your trusty phone and call the IRS, I think they would be more qualified then you to determine if any tax laws are being violated.

You also wrote:
"Over time, I have come to some concrete views on various issues, but never what I would call extreme stances."

I believe you want that to be true, but I think your only fooling yourself.

I wanted to have some dialogue with you, but I have recognized that what you feel about the extreme right, you are to the extreme left.

It's up to you if you want to respond, by I'm out.

BTW, there's no need to insult the fact that I am in the mid-west, I spent half my life within 40 mins. of the White House.
drk

Concord, NH

#61 Oct 30, 2009
itsME wrote:
Responses below
I stated previously that I am an independent as well. Being an independent means holding various viewpoints on a plethora of issues in a globalized world that is constantly changing due to new information being gleaned from others. I will openly agree that the Midwest and Plains was generally too socially conservative for me when I lived there. Apparently, you feel my viewpoints on social issues are too "extreme." This might be due to an age gap that we have as you mentioned that you are in your 60s. I would consider myself more socially independent overall. I see the falacies on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. Because I am an independent, I can take a more pronounced stand on some issues while taking a much more moderate stand on other issues. I don't think in constant black/white terms because it makes me far too complacent and intellectually lazy. I admit that my viewpoints can sound contradictory at times depending on the specific issue I am talking about. The world is not a concrete place so the mind shouldn't be either.

"I asked you a simple question and you felt the need to insinuate I was being rude and blunt,"

I come from an Upper Midwestern cultural background of being very reserved and private with details regarding my personal life. Your directness came off as being overtly blunt. It has nothing to do with being PC at all.

"My observation is you are rigid and not open-minded at all considering same-sex marriage and equally unchanging on the tax-exempt issue for churches who, accoring to you, cross the line by being politically involved."

I am more libertarian on this issue. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business. I see the same-sex marriage debate as a civil rights issue and economic issue as well. A consenting couple should be allowed to participate in the economic benefits that come from a partnership as well. The tax-exempt issue stems more out of my frustration regarding the more activist political stances that some church denominations have taken in recent times. Other church denominations exhibit far less of this behavior. I prefer the inclusiveness of a UU church and the beliefs that they stand for.

"you are to the extreme left."

My viewpoints are moderate to center-right in the place I live now.
To take a trip back to the KC area is a bit strange due to the fact that the viewpoints and attitudes of a good majority of the populace are very slow to change. The provinicialism and complacency can be quite frustrating as well as the odd social culture.

"BTW, there's no need to insult the fact that I am in the mid-west,"

Apparently the Midwest mentality still exists :)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Kansas Medical Center Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Suicide-Linked Pain Drug May Be Right For You (Feb '09) May '13 Mekhi 2
News Committee approves funding for stem cell center (May '13) May '13 woodtick57 4
News House approves adult stem cell bill (Mar '13) Mar '13 Welcome 1
News Lois Jean Alnutt (Mar '13) Mar '13 Vi Bush 1
News Smokers use hotline to reclaim years of their l... (Feb '13) Feb '13 Smokers Cologne 1
News Abortion bill advances in Kansas House (May '12) May '12 Kathwynn 4
News Ronald Glen Duckworth (Apr '12) Apr '12 Former Mayor Jeff... 1
More from around the web