Constitution Party Opposes Water Parks?

About a month ago, I had a cordial conversation/debate with a higher-level Constitution Party of Texas official in regards to the CP platform and my city council campaign. I’m a big idea person. I’m a dreamer of sorts I guess you could say (blame that on Rich Dad, Poor Dad).

So some of my economic development ideas countered what this CP official - and many more, I’ve come to find out - stood for. Not that I’m not a Christian (a Hebrew-rooted one at that), but I think encouraging businesses such as a water park to come to my Texas county—Ellis, directly south of Dallas County—did not sit well with the CP. “Mixed-bathing” is what the Pentecostal university I attended for a while calls it (the AG bans that too).

Our closest water park is 30 minutes away in north Arlington, near where the Dallas Cowboys stadium is going up. An economical alternative - something where families wouldn’t have to drive all the way into the Mid-Cities - such as a small water park, to me, would be a no-brainer.

I jokingly (seriously though, too) refer to my former Pentecostal school as a “miniature Iran.” People laugh when I say that.

But it’s not a laughing matter, to me personally, that a political platform as down-right theocratic as the CP, could take a majority in a city somewhere (then again, I’m not that much of a dreamer haha.)

Anyway…water parks are immoral? Count me out of the CP then.

40 Responses to “Constitution Party Opposes Water Parks?”

  1. globalist_elitist Says:

    When the CP decries “mixed” bathing, is it the man/woman mix that offends them, or the black/white mix? Maybe it’s not the “mixed” at all, but the “bathing” part?

  2. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Joey where’s there a point in your Assembly of God bashing or was the school to hard for you and they made you act like a moral human and that hurt your feelings. I doubt the CP as a whole is against water parks. Also the AOG as a whole is not against water parks. I know became I am a minister with the AOG. The school knows college kids just getting away from their parents, and hormones are not a good mix and they want to maintain some sort of moral discipline. If you didn’t like it you should have left but to call it miniature Iran show how ignorant you really are.

  3. Chris Fluharty Says:


  4. Trent Hill Says:

    Uhhhh, the CP is not against water parks. Mind you, this fella you talked to might be against them…but that doesnt MEAN anything. Is it in the platform? Has it been a talking poiint? Then it isn’t what we stand for.
    Robert Milnes wants to make a progressive alliance, and many people in the LP agree with him…but it doesnt mean the LP is going to do it.

    The only reason I can think of being against what you said is if “encouraging” water parks involves “Tax incentives”.

  5. Trent Hill Says:

    This article is rediculous, and i’d like to know whom exactly you spoke with—becasue they dont belong in the CP.

  6. Jackcjackson Says:

    I guess if I ever want to avoid any CP types I can just go back to my hometown. It was a beach. people of all genders and races went in the water there and even wore swimsuits.

  7. timothy west Says:

    water parks must be unprincipled somehow. They need a new platform plank.

  8. Brandon H. Says:

    Is this post a joke?

  9. globalist_elitist Says:

    A literal platform plank, off which to dive?

    Trent is blind to the Amish faction of his party. He is like a true believer in socialism who is blind to Stalin’s crimes.

    The average CPer would shut down public beaches, force women and men apart in private pools, and require chicks to wear burkas. I don’t even believe the CP is Christian, I think they’re a secret Islamic front.

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh bullshit. The average CPer smokes, drinks, and eats pork. He has sex with his woman in positions other than missionary. I’ll admit there are some extremists in our party (who used to be in leadership sometimes) who are downright stupid and crazy.
    But those extremists are no worse than your Robert Milnes, Gene Chapman’s, and …well I wont name him. But still.

  11. Steve Says:

    Is the question of water parks a moral or an economic one? I say that because in my home state of Iowa we have a massive corporate welfare program called Vision Iowa that is supposed to build tourist attractions in the major cities. When small town legislators realized what a scam it was that their money was being funneled to big cities, instead of cancelling the program they added a section that gives money to any small town that wants, wait for it. . . . a water park. The idea is that quality of life will go up and families will move to these towns, increasing the tax base. I have yet to see any newspaper story with less than effusive praise for this boondoogle, but they all admit somewhere near the bottom paragraph that no taxpayer funded park is actually turning a profit. (I’d like to see a real academic study of the cost/benefit of these parks, I can already see the title: Soaked-Debunking the Case for Water Parks).
    I say all that to say that limited goverment types like us in the LP and most of the CP may have good reasons for opposing such a plan that go beyond men and women swimming together.

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    Nice use of the word “boondoggle.” That is the correct definition and it is rarely used correctly. Kudos.

  13. Steve Says:

    Thanks for the compliment g_e, especially since you’re not known for being liberal with you praise. It made my day, I may have to start commenting more often.

  14. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    May 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
    This article is rediculous, and i’d like to know whom exactly you spoke with—becasue they dont belong in the CP.”

    Kind of like how GE doesn’t really belong in the LP.

  15. Jason Gatties Says:

    Ok to come to Joey’s defense a bit, when I was thinking about joining the CP a few years back (I didn’t know much about the CP at the time), I was turned off by some anti-jewish sentiment coming from our State Chairman at the time. It also seemed to me at the time that many CP members agreed with the sentiment, atleast in my state.

    I feel that if you represent the party at a high level and you utter anti-jewish or in this case, anti-water park sentiments, it does look bad on the party as a whole. Thats the same with the LP, Greens, Republicans and Democrats. I understand there is nothing in the CP Platform that I could see that says anything that is anti-jewish, but if you are being recruited by a state official who did make those remarks, he is representing the party as a whole and that does look bad.

    There is nothing wrong with encouraging a water park to open in your town as long as that water park is privately funded.

  16. JR Says:

    I’m a former CP state chairman. My family and I go to waterparks every year. If the city of Sauk Center wants to ban waterparks, that’s their business. If their board happens to be CP members, that doesn’t make the waterpark ban a CP issue. It’s not. Trying to make it one is a stretch of slanderous proportions.


  17. globalist_elitist Says:

    “Kind of like how GE doesn’t really belong in the LP.”

    Gee. That hurt. Ouch. :(

    “Kinda of like how Andy doesn’t belong on Planet Earth. He really belongs on Planet Zaltron; away from the Illumanti, the Annunaki, LIzardman, Jews, and Communists.”

  18. Gary Odom Says:

    This article is not well written.

    First of all, let’s knock off this “theocratic” nonsense about the CP. Nowhere in our platform to we endorse a theocracy. Acknowledging that our rights derive from God goes right back to the Declaration of Independence. That is all our party really says on the subject.

    It’s hard to know what the heck the writer is getting at. Obviously the CP does not oppose the idea of Water Parks. To slant the article in that direction is just a totally unfair attempt to make the party look ridiculous.
    In trying to decipher what the writer was saying, is it possible that the CP person he is referring to opposed tax subsidies in order to entice business? If so, that is something that a lot of people would oppose including Constitutionalists, Libertarians and some “Goldwater” conservatives.

    It’s hard to tell from this extremely poorly written piece just what the supposed objection to the park is.

    Anyway, you can fine strange biases and prejudices everywhere. Just because anyone expresses what might seem like an off the wall point of view does not mean that it is logical to attribute that point of view the the entire party of which that individual might be a member.

    I don’t have time to pay much attention to this site, but it seems that the topics here are increasingly trivial and silly and many of the articles amatuerish and poorly written. It doesn’t seem to be meeting its potential these days. Just my opinion.

  19. SovereignMN Says:

    This article was poor. Are we going to take every party member’s opinions and post them as representing the entire party?

    I live very close the border of my county. The neighboring county (Ramsey) is 3 blocks away has a large park right on the border filled with ponds, creeks, forests and walking paths. 3 years ago the neighboring county decided to put a public waterpark right in the middle of the existing park. Now since I’m not a resident of the county I had no say…but if I were I would have opposed this for many reasons.
    1) I don’t think the county has any business building and operating a water park.
    2) The appeal of the existing park was ruined. When I walk or ride my bike through this large park instead of enjoying a peaceful setting I now have to deal with the traffic, noise and garbage that comes from having a large park right in the middle.
    3) Could have a negative effect on my property value.

    Does this make me anti-waterpark? In this instance yes. In general, no.

  20. Chris Campbell Says:

    Thanks Gary, I rarely anymore look at this site as it is largely a waste of a chance for real alternative Party discussion.

  21. Trent Hill Says:


    Although I generally agree with your choice of articles…im siding with Gary on this one. This article doesnt identify WHO said what, WHAT they said, WHEN they said it, or in what CONTEXT they made the statement. It is a bit of hearsay combined with your loathing for your pentecostal school.

    If this is about tax incentives, i’d oppose it too. If that makes me theocratic, you guys aren’t libertarian.
    And don’t point to the “mixed bathing” comment,that comes from Joey.

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    OH. and Jason Gatties,

    “I was turned off by some anti-jewish sentiment coming from our State Chairman at the time. ”

    That was Cal Zastrow. Him and his followers left. If there are any anti-semites left, I am going to blast them publicly—by now im sure you’re aware of my jewish heritage.

  23. Fred C. Says:

    Using taxpayer money to support a giant well of chlorinated toddler urine is not just unlibertarian - it’s unamerican.

  24. Joey Dauben Says:

    This wasn’t an article, Gary (and Trent). This was a blog post. Blog posts are not “articles” per se.

    It was simply a re-telling of an off-the-cuff conversation about the city council campaign; I’m not in favor of extending tax breaks to every company that wants one, but I am in favor of promoting our city and our county as the best location to place such family-friendly activity centers - a miniature golf course would be the next-best thing. Future-talk here, if our county grows to the 450,000 population that has been projected, I’d love to see us land a minor league baseball team.

    However, this issue is not due to economics. And I’m wanting to be very clear: In no way am I “bashing” the party official who I was speaking with; he’s a good friend of mine, and I respect his wisdom and advice.

    The main thing was that if I were to have joined the CP fully, and then in turn, become an elected official, the agenda that I have conflicts with a particular segment of the CP platform.

    Private vs. public - that’s not the issue here. I’d like to privatize many things, but that’s not the issue.

    The question is, where do we draw the line in legislating public morality? Because a majority of councilmen decide that bikini-clad teenagers is against God’s law, that means we’d have to restrict and outlaw water parks?

    I’m just throwing this out for discussion…some of you have taken this way too personal. It’s just really meant for a discussion, not a CP-bashing fest.

  25. Tom Bryant Says:

    This article was incredibly poor and useless.

    Joey writes “but I think encouraging businesses such as a water park to come to my Texas county—Ellis, directly south of Dallas County—did not sit well with the CP.”

    There is no explanation of what Joey’s ideas were, and there is no elaboration about why he THOUGHT the idea did not sit well with the CP.

    He had a conversation with a “higher-level” officer, but does not include what was said. We are left to assume that the higher-level officer he talked to in the first paragraph also gave him his “though” that the CP doesn’t like water parks.

    Joey then launches into his Pentacostal University, which apparently has nothind to do with the subject of the post.

    Joey ends by saying he is afraid of the CP taking a majority anywhere.

    In sum, there is no real content in this post. This is incredibly poor journalism, especially considering it is coming from the first-person.
    This article is just a waste of space, provides no explanation of the CP, and an outlet for Joey to bash the CP.

    Anyone else here think Joey being allowed to post here is a mistake? It seems that he just cares about starting arguments and bring up dead issues (hacker) rather than contribute anything newsworthy.

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    Hold on, though: This isn’t the federal government subsidizing a water park. It is the local government. And I thought the CP was for “local control,” virtually unrestrained? This is more hypocrisy from the CP.

    Do not make a value judgment on any one of these positions, but tell me that they are not entirely contradictory:

    It is NOT okay for the government to prohibit a company from firing a person based on their race when race has nothing to do with the job; but is IS okay for the government to make a law saying that a person cannot be fired for refusing to do the job based on “moral” conviction.

    It is NOT okay for the local government to subsidize a water park (and presumably any public park, library, bike path, etc. because what’s the difference other than interracial “bathing”?), but is IS okay for the local government to ban practices that the CP does not like - gambling, prostitution, drugs, interracial fraternization, etc.


  27. SovereignMN Says:

    GE…don’t be an idiot. Whoops! Too late. You know darn well that there is a difference between saying “The Constitution leaves _ up to the States” and saying “I support my State doing _ .”

  28. Joey Dauben Says:

    Uhh, just to clarify, I’m talking about male and female “mixed bathing.” It had nothing to do with race, just simply that certain officials within the CP and the local Pentecostal university in which I attend(ed) think that males and females swimming together in public/private/whatever water parks and pools was immoral.

    I’m simply pointing out how a CP majority could govern, and I disagree with the stance. That’s all this post is about.

  29. globalist_elitist Says:

    SMN: Yes. But I’ve heard some CP members (one in particular, whose initials are “Cody Quirk”) basically take the stance that state governments can do whatever they want - i.e. regulate drugs, prostitution, seat belts, and presumably even more ridiculous things like sexual practices, transfats, etc. And he is not alone. Others have chimed in in agreement. But now everyone in the CP says “we can’t have public money going to a water park.” Why not? Is it legit in the CP’s eyes for municipal funds to go to a public park? Then what makes it different if there is water involved?

  30. Tom Bryant Says:

    Joey reports that it’s one “high-level” officier in Texas and apparenly “certain officials” as well believe that it is immoral. That’s hardly representative of the CP. The vagueness of Joey’s report and the fact that the whole point of the article was to bash the CP makes me really wonder what was said.

    When someone provides no substance and reaches a conclusion, I’m always suspect.

  31. Trent Hill Says:


    Gene Chapman believed that it was normal to have sex with mules as a child growing up in Georgia.
    Gene Chapman was a member of the LP.

    By the way, I heard a “high level” mule-screwer one time tell me that he supported the War on Drugs.
    He was also from Georgia.

    Point being, I can imagine a situation in which Libertarians were pro-War on Drugs and pro-Mule Sex.

    See how rediculous this article is?

  32. SovereignMN Says:

    “Is it legit in the CP’s eyes for municipal funds to go to a public park? Then what makes it different if there is water involved?”

    I think the assumption that most people are going with here is that a water park is being operated for profit. Thus it charges for admission. Even if the park isn’t charging an admission, or is only charging a scant one to recoup its costs, it’s still going to be in direct competition with other private entities and it isn’t fair to those private parks to have to compete with a public one.

  33. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Well Joey the Assembly of God does not dictate our platform. I am a state vice chair and an Assembly of God minister and I found your piece lacking thought and credibility. It was simply a vent on your part and should not have been posted as a feature article. My family and I visit water parks, but do find the way many young ladies dress to be highly offensive and improper in public. But to outlaw it is legislating religion and not a part of any state platform that I know of.

    Trent- Your observation on the “averege CPer” may be true in your state but it is not fair to generalize all CPers as smokers, drinkers and fornicators. That is very untrue here in Missouri. Maybe a more careful choice of words was in order.

  34. globalist_elitist Says:

    For the last time, Gene Chapman was not the mulescrewer! He was a petty child molester. The mulescrewer was a CP guy. And besides, Chapman was going for the CP nomination - but the CP brass are authoritarian enough (in a good way) to tell him to get lost.

  35. Tom Bryant Says:

    Gene Chapman didn’t molest any child. He just mentioned that he talks to the teenage girls on the internet. Let’s be realistic here. If he was having inappropriate conversations, the odds are much mor likely it was a 50 year old dude pretending to be a smoking hot 16 year cheerleader curious about sex.

    Chapman was arrested for attempting to blow up a truck filled with propane near an IRS building and many innocent bystanders. He was sent to psychological evaluation and somehow was let back loose on the streets.

    I do not believe that Chapman was a member of the LP in any capacity other than a “zero-dues” member (signed up online but contributed no money).

    Chapman is a mentally ill man with a lot of delusions. Much like St. Micheal Jesus the Archangel running for the GOP nomination (he’s serving time for attempted murder now I believe, but you can still sign up to be one of the Lord’s bikini models on his website).

  36. globalist_elitist Says:

    Actually, Doug Chapman’s ex-wife alleged that he did try to molest a child.

  37. Trent Hill Says:

    Exactly. So we all agree…every party has their crazies.

  38. globalist_elitist Says:

    Except Chapman wasn’t a member of the LP. We have Andy, though, so that’ll do.

  39. Cody Quirk Says:

    Is this post a joke?

    =Yes! As much a joke as his post on the Borat movie being ‘News’.

  40. Cody Quirk Says:

    And by the way, if you came across ‘former leaders’ of the CP acting like Theocratic bigots in a way, before- know now, that such people likely left after Tampa.

    Good Riddence!

Leave a Reply