September 27, 2006, - 9:18 am

Slurp It: 7-Eleven Dumps Chavez’s CITGO

Readers of this site know that I’m a big fan of 7-Eleven and Slurpees. My writing on both is , , and .
But, then, one reader, “Smudge,” rained on the parade and and exclusively sold CITGO gas at its stations. I checked and “Smudge” was correct. I’d never knowingly recommend a product, service, or business that has dealings with America’s enemies, including Chavez. Until now, Venezuela supplied 15% of U.S. oil through CITGO and 7-Eleven gas stations, which are also really CITGO stations, many of which bear the CITGO sign.
We’re happy to report that 7-Eleven is ending its relationship with Chavez and CITGO. 7-Eleven also took an unusual, but courageous step for corporate America. It basically denounced Chavez’s comments, last week, at the United Nations (see statement, below). We applaud that.

Okay to Get Slurpees Again: 7-Eleven Dumps CITGO

The story was broken by Bud Hedinger of Orlando’s WFLA-AM 540, a station on which I frequently appear. Pat Campbell, the station’s awesome morning host, sent the tip.
I confirmed this with Janey Carpenter, Consumer Affairs Manager for 7-Eleven, who sent this statement:

7-Eleven stores 20-year supply agreement with CITGO Petroleum Corporation, a U.S.-based company, ends next week, and 7-Eleven, Inc. is now making the switch to its own branded gasoline. Distributors for the gasoline that 7-Eleven stores begin selling in October is provided to us by U.S. companies, such as Tower Energy Group in Torrance, Calif., Sinclair Oil of Salt Lake City and Frontier Oil Corporation of Houston.
Customers will begin seeing the signs changing – with the CITGO signs coming down from the gas canopy and off the gasoline dispensers, and the 7-Eleven brand going up — at our more than 2,100 gasoline convenience-retail locations around the U.S. starting this month. While most of the signs will be changed by the end of next year, this is a large undertaking, and not all CITGO signs will be off our gas canopies until 2008.
Regardless of politics, we sympathize with some Americans’ concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez.

We’re happy to note that for 7-Eleven’s 80th birthday next year, on 7/11/07, the company will be Chavez free. And even happier to note that it’s okay to buy Slurpees again.
**** UPDATE: 7-Eleven’s Janey Carpenter also sends this statement:

In response to your email, the agreement with Citgo only allows us to use their signage until we have re-branded all of our gasoline locations. Effective midnight September 30, 7-Eleven, Inc. will no longer be purchasing its gasoline from Citgo.

Again, this is great news. I’ll Slurp to that. (No juvenile sex jokes, please.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

45 Responses
Please see the above link according to their Annual 10-k filing it expired on September 2006 but they renewed it till 2007 and to some extent to 2008. So let me get this straight they renewed the contract even after the political drama by Chanvez for one more year.
Sounds like 7-11 is trying to politicize the issue just like Debbie
“In response to your email, the agreement with Citgo only allows us to use their signage until we have re-branded all of our gasoline locations. Effective midnight September 30, 7-Eleven, Inc. will no longer be purchasing its gasoline from Citgo.”

thirdgoat on September 27, 2006 at 10:57 am

I am more than thrilled to learn of 7-11’s decision to dump Citgo. I am sure that it was, in part, political in nature. There is another connection between the two companies, though. Over the last 20 years, both companies have raised tens of millions of dollars for the Jerry Lewis MD telethon. I suspect that the gasoline partnership may have roots in that common bond. I am very curious to learn whether Jerry Lewis and the Muscular Dystrophy Association will continue their close affiliation with Citgo. Jerry is a strong patriot and I’m sure it would be a difficult decision to subject MDA to a loss of funding as opposed to tacitly supporting Chavez and his insane comments. Deb, perhaps you can find some information in that regard.

csjd on September 27, 2006 at 11:48 am

Ow now that is “Freedom of Speech” by a conservative. You are banning for discounting your mis-information

thirdgoat on September 27, 2006 at 12:09 pm

I have read alot of your posts Turdgoat and they are empty and lack substance, you may think you are discounting somebody, but really I think you are confused and disoriented. You really should get back on your medication.

mark on September 27, 2006 at 12:19 pm

You need to maintain a database of people/groups/organizations that love and hate the US, since you get so mixed up. You seem to have a problem inferring when someone is anti-US and when someone is a patriotic American. See a hakim.

anonymous twit on September 27, 2006 at 12:36 pm

thanks Mark for calling me names. I understand your point and your assesment. However, I do feel the proper thing for you will be counter my argument instead of calling me names and generalizing negativity about me.
Please share me your opinion and counter my points instead of calling name. We all are matured and sure can act like one

thirdgoat on September 27, 2006 at 12:37 pm

this is a privately owned privately maintained website.
there is no such thing as freedom of speech on private property, conservative or otherwise.
any/all people participate here at DS pleasure.
no wonder “you people” are so far behind the US.
you can not grasp even the most basic principles of private property. the foundation of “our” nation.
as for DS essay, i would not get too happy yet.
last year we got a third of our oil per day from the prince of caracas. for all his blather he loves the yankee dollar. i would watch out for that frontier co. in houston, that maybe a ghost company of some sort masquerading as a front company. just maybe.

louielouie on September 27, 2006 at 12:52 pm


thirdgoat on September 27, 2006 at 12:53 pm

This is funny so here we all should dance and cheer the hatred and misinformaiton you are feeding each other. That is a very meaningful way of engaging in a discussion.

thirdgoat on September 27, 2006 at 1:26 pm

Now if we could only do the same with Middle East oil. I’d love to see what they would do without the US market.

Southernops on September 27, 2006 at 1:35 pm

Are you from Dearborn? Ah yes your profile is called “Deereborn69”. No wonder you are using terms like ‘misinformation’.

anonymous twit on September 27, 2006 at 1:41 pm

You’re welcome Turd, I have a finger spelling imediment, but you say, your arguments, you have made no arguments to refute. you suggest things with no follow up. You sound like a typical liberal who expects everyone else to carry the ball for you, then you can come in here and take a shot but even they are almost always misfires.
For example, in another post you say, ‘oh like gays and lesbians in the Scouts and the military’.
First, the Scouts is a private organization, they can choose any leader they prefer, they prefer not to have gay leaders because they believe it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve,… But more importantly, the Military… Your hero BJ clinton screwed that up royally, when he couldn’t wait to sign his don’t ask don’t tell policy, soldiers are accustomed to watching their back but they shouldn’t have to worry about the guy in the hole next to them. It is no wonder they usually get an E-tool upside the head when they get too close…But now they want to court martial the guy who was accousted, because he defended himself. It used to be when they were found out they were immediately discharged and the situation was over with… now it is, nothing but problems. The troops, today, have a lot more serious problems to worry about, they should NOT have to worry about whether they can trust the guy next to them.
You see you may be a liberal but you must remember, you Liberals, can not be trusted with National Security. I wouldn’t trust a liberal to pick up the garbage but that’s just me.

mark on September 27, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Ha ha that was a funny argument
you guys just criticized Opera for a balck only event. Last time I checked she is a private person. So we can not want Scout to admit Gays because they are “private” but we can hold a private person responsible for a black only event. Seems like double standard to me. I do not get into personal attack so I will refrain from responding any of your personal attack

thirdgoat on September 27, 2006 at 2:23 pm

No personal attacks, you not only can’t make an argument, but … Who is,” Opera and what is a balck only event”.

mark on September 27, 2006 at 2:36 pm

thanks for the correction Mark for my spelling
Oprah and Black would have been correct, the finger went fast
thanks again for the correction

thirdgoat on September 27, 2006 at 2:58 pm

Well let?s see??.
Chavez?s country supplies 14 % of US OIL. Do you know when he was elected in a fair democratic election (verified by US and the UN) we shutdown all computer access at the oil companys remotely (look it up- that point is VERY PROVABLE) and we wonder he is upset with us. He gives oil profits to the poor- do our oil companys do the same?
Humm?. Let?s keep going?.
CHINA buys 64% of IRANS OIL?.
Hamm?. How much Wal-Mart stuff is made in china? How much of what you wearing or what you one is made in china? China is support terrorism through Iran by buying oil from them and selling goods to Americans.
You?re going to go off on 7-11 about CITGO when CITGO is also given cheap flue to the poor during winter?
Did you know that amaco-texxico and all the other MAJOR us oil companies were paying the Taliban to allow a pipeline through Afghanistan? They supported terrorism far more than Chavez.
Or you or your parents buying gas from any station during the 1980?s. You supported Saudi Arabia ?. Which funneled money to Osama Bin Laden.
So you?re going to freak about 7-11?.. Take a look in the mirror before you pass judgment.
Remember WE AMERICANS supported OSM with training weapons, money, etc. so he would fight against Russia?.. Why are we surprised when Our tame lap dog which we ignored through the Regan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush years turned on us? WE CREATED OBL.

lazurs on September 27, 2006 at 4:15 pm

My God, it would be hard to find a person who narrow-mindedly and blindly supported the actions of state and corporation outside Communist Russia and Fascist Germany, but here’s one right here.
Debbie, guess what? America doesn’t run the fucking world.

monofonik on September 27, 2006 at 4:17 pm

I fail to see why this is such a great move. Why do you think Citgo is so much more evil than, say, ExxonMobil?
I felt that Chavez’s statements about our President were unnecessary and undermined the credibility of his speech, but they accomplished something very important: they got people (including Americans) to hear or read the rest of his UN speech. The mainstream news agencies and right-wing propagandists only reported the devil/sulfur part of the speech, of course, but people who actually care looked at the rest of it. And guess what? He had really fantastic things to say.
Why is the UN so powerless? It’s because it’s inherently undemocratic, in that any of the major powers can single-handedly vote down any resolution. The US is the most common one to do this.
How can the US claim to be at war with terrorism when we support it? Our government claims to be the enemy of any government that harbors terrorists, but that’s exactly what we do. Look up all of the crimes of Luis Posada Carriles, then notice that the US has him and refuses to extradite him for trials. He is not the first person. Look up Orlando Bosch, who was PARDONED for his terrorism by George H W Bush. On August 26 of 2004 the Bush administration condoned the release of 3 anti-Cuba terrorists (Guillermo Novo, Gaspar Jimenez, and Pedro Remon) from prison in Panama and allowed them to fly freely into Miami in an attempt to gain more votes from Florida.
So, you see, Chavez has some great points. Why is he so evil to you? You say he’s anti-US, but you need to be more specific. Chavez is anti-US government, but he is pro-American and he has demonstrated this before. I think Chavez is telling us more truth than our own President is. Just because you don’t like the way it sounds, that does not mean he’s evil. You shouldn’t boycot Venezuelen oil because their President is not afraid to tell us the truth. Instead, why don’t we demand that our own President to begin telling us the truth instead?

bonobo on September 27, 2006 at 4:33 pm

For what it’s worth, I called the 7-Eleven headquarters in Dallas and praised them for this pro-american stand.
I will also make a more concerted effort to go to 7-Eleven’s vs Circle K or any other quick marts.
Man amd I proud of 7-Eleven. I hope the media praises them and I hope their sales go thru the roof.

DurkaDurkaMohammed on September 27, 2006 at 5:44 pm

But Durka, your pro-American attitude is, in this case, really just a pro-rich person attitude.
The oil profits from big American oil companies like ExxonMobil go predominantly into the pockets of already rich people, while the oil profits from Venezuelen oil goes predominantly into social programs that improve the quality of life for Venezuelen citizens. Personally, I would rather support that ideal even if it is in another country, because I agree with that ideal. Venezuelen oil is offering discounted heating oil to poor -Americans- because our own -American- oil companies are bleeding the poor. That seems like a really great thing to me, and it makes me want to support Citgo or other places that sell Venezuelen oil.
Your American patriotism is being exploited for the financial benefit of a minority of the US population–the rich.

bonobo on September 27, 2006 at 5:57 pm

Debbie, could you point us towards some of the evidence of election fraud & rigging in Venezula?

sean on September 27, 2006 at 7:00 pm

Your a retard. So take that and shove it up your impovrished butt!
Maybe a little oil will help you lube it in there…..

DurkaDurkaMohammed on September 27, 2006 at 7:25 pm

My heart bleeds for your poor impovrished butt.
I am not rich but I got nothing against people who are or who aspire to be. So take your class warfare elsewhere.
You must be from some backward country to have those beliefs or perhaps your just an America hater homegrown right here in the USA. Did you go to Berkley, Harvard, Columbia and now your a social crusader. Defending the world from evil America????
Save it pal. We do more for the world’s poor and downtrodden than all the nations of the world combined.
Perhaps you should get a job to pay your bills instead of trying to get a free ride off the backs of an American corporation. What’s next, do you deserve a new car because car companies make big profits. Do you deserve a new home because homebuilder make big profits?
Put the bong down and allow the air in your head to clear.

DurkaDurkaMohammed on September 27, 2006 at 7:34 pm

I’m curious as to where Tower, Frontier and Sinclair get their gasoline or oil to refine into gasoline. Does anybody know?

Mark in Mexico on September 27, 2006 at 8:29 pm

I was listening on the radio yesterday and heard some more good news about this Citgo thing. The State of Florida had a contract with Citgo as well. Florida is cancelling their contract with Citgo, specifically because of Chavez’ remarks.

Craig C on September 28, 2006 at 9:40 am

Bonobo said: “…the oil profits from Venezuelen oil goes predominantly into social programs that improve the quality of life for Venezuelen citizens.”
Time to study up on this one. The profits made by the nationalized Venezeulan oil company Citgo doesn’t go to the people. The people are in poverty, much like Cuba, another Marxist dictatorship. The money goes to building up the military forces of “Crazy Chavez”, who insists it is because the United States is going to try to invade his fiefdom.

Craig C on September 28, 2006 at 9:47 am

i am sick of hearing how we funded bin laden, he did not want us there anymore than he wanted us in kuwait. Yes we funded fighters in Afghanistan who were fighting the soviets, there were plenty of groups doing that.

commiedog on September 28, 2006 at 1:27 pm

Thanks for providing such a compelling argument against me. You really showed me. I mean.. wow. You went point-by-point over everything I said and showed me exactly why I was wrong. I think you, sir, for making such an insightful post.

bonobo on September 28, 2006 at 2:43 pm

I’m doing some searching on Google and so far I can’t find much support for your statements. All I find so far are articles supporting what I said about Chavez running a lot of big social programs. Now, you could argue that maybe those aren’t the best way to solve the poverty problems, but then we get into a completely different discussion. (go down to the PDVSA and Social Programs section)
As for building up military forces “because the US is going to try to invade”.. why does that seem so far-fetched to you? We (the US) has a very strong history in recent decades of invading other countries with “questionable” motivations. I mean, I don’t want to try to move this discussion in the direction of Iraq.. but we were told that we were going there for WMDs (turned out not to be there) and to fight al-Quaeda (even our esteemed President has admitted to us now that Iraq was not supporting al-Quaeda). So we invaded and are still occupying that country under false pretenses. We invaded Vietnam under the pretense that of the Domino Effect of communism, and we wrought unheard of carnage and destruction on it when, in reality, they should be allowed to determine their own form of government. The US terrorism campaign against Cuba is the largest-scale terrorism operation in history. Look at what the Reagan administration did to Nicaragua.
The only reason why the US hasn’t gone after Venezuela and Bolivia more actively is because it is pre-occupied with Afghanistan and Iraq, with its eyes possibly on Iran. It is widely believed (inside and outside of Venezuela) that the US had a very strong hand in the abduction of Chavez and the coup that followed that, but I doubt we’ll have the evidence to support that for quite awhile.

bonobo on September 28, 2006 at 3:12 pm

Again, this is great news. I’ll Slurp to that. (No juvenile sex jokes, please.)
No? Bummers!

KOAJaps on September 28, 2006 at 6:54 pm

Exactly how many countries and which ones did we invade with no reason? Grenada? Panama? Iraq?
All were valid. I guess it depends on whose version of history you want to believe. Lucky for you our country allows such discussions without people being arrested.

Craig C on September 29, 2006 at 1:27 am

And we didn’t “invade” Vietnam. We were asked in by the then current government to help put down the communist insurrection that was occuring.

Craig C on September 29, 2006 at 1:29 am

What was valid about these invasions?
We were given reasons for the invasion of Iraq, and they turned out to all be wrong. WMDs. There weren’t any, and never were. The CIA was telling the White House they had no evidence of that, but some British intelligence agency said there was evidence. So, the White House decided to trust the foreigners’ intelligence over our own. Then we were told about links to al-Quaeda. That turned out to be as wrong as you can get, because it turns out al-Quaeda was an enemy of Saddam Hussein and, in fact, when Saddam learned that al-Zarqawi was in Bagdad he tried to have him arrested and killed.
So, what’s left to make this invasion legitimate? There must have been some other motive for the invasion that we were never told, probably because we would not have agreed.
Look, it seems really, REALLY obvious why Islamic extremism is becoming bigger and more of a threat after this Iraq invasion and occuption: a lot of Muslims consider the US “war on terror” to actually be a US “war on Islam”. They see us invade a Muslim country under false pretenses and think, “Are we next?” The extremists have been preaching that the US is evil and wants to destroy the Muslim world, and now they’re saying “hey look! We told you so!”

bonobo on September 29, 2006 at 12:22 pm

I will have to respectfully disagree with you about Vietnam. We attacked Vietnam and the rest of Indochina, and wrought considerable destruction on them for no good reason. Vietnam was completely devastated by what the US did there, and thousands of people die there every year still as a result of the chemical weapons we used against them. But what’s important in considering whether it’s a “valid invasion” (as though any “invasion” is really valid) is the historical perspective.
After the Geneva UN conference on in May 1954, Vietnam was divided into north and south and it was agreed that there would be a democratic election to unify the country in July 1956. Well, before that election could take place the South Vietnam leader, Diem, realized that he was going to lose the election to Ho-Chi Minh, the beloved leader in the North. At that time, Diem was favored by the US (later when he became sufficiently independent the US backed a coup to oust him) and they began sending military advisors over to South Vietnam in February of 1955. The Diem government begins a big anti-communist movement in South Vietnam and announces that they are canceling the 1956 election. So right here, the US-backed Diem government is pulling out of the democratic election because they know the people don’t support them.
At that point, the [communist] citizens in South Vietnam begin to improve their organizing activities. The government starts using armed, heavy-handed groups against them so in 1959 the people in South Vietnam form a new group, the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (aka the Viet Cong). I think that’s the official start of the “Second Indochina War” (what we call the Vietnam War, and what most Vietnamese call the American War I’m told).
In December 1960 the opposition movement, including Viet Cong, unite into a common NLF (National Liberation Front), including communists, non-communists, various interest groups and different political parties. In 1961 Kennedy increases support for the South Vietnam government with lots of money and military equipment, and by December has around 3200 US military personnel there.
This is a really rough overview of how things got started, but it’s pretty clear that the US went there to support a government that was against its own people, that was inherently non-democratic. It just happened to be more friendly and favorable to the US government, because it knew the US could help keep it in power. The South Vietnamese government was a minority-supported regime that needed military force to keep itself in power.
I can also go on about what sorts of things the US did against South Vietnam if you want. About how we defoliated the countryside and destroyed their only sources of food using napalm and stuff. That happened in SOUTH Vietnam, where we were supposedly helping out. It was completely devastated and is still suffering today from what we did.

bonobo on September 29, 2006 at 1:17 pm

You are s spicket for Leftist tripe. Your a hopeless cause.
Your mind is polluted with Leftist ideas. Your mind is as corrupted as the kid in Pakistan who is being preached hatred. You have bought into anti-American hatred and you are incapable of true rational dialog.
Someone who can drone on forever (you), spouting Liberal platitudes (your ideas) while attempting to rewrite history and denigrate your country is not very open-minded or interesting.
You couldn’t recognize the truth if it slapped you in the face and you probably wouldn’t have the courage to admit it, even if it did.

DurkaDurkaMohammed on September 29, 2006 at 2:59 pm

Once again, I thank you for your words. Your insulting post, devoid of any fact or information, has shown me the err of my ways.
Look, I’m not pushing liberal ideas here. I’m deliberately trying to avoid presenting much of my opinion, and I’m trying to put forth history. This is stuff is well-documented. Right- or left-wingers don’t dispute this stuff, they just try to ignore it and forget it.
If you think I’m rewriting history, why don’t you go lookup the history of the 1954 Geneva conference. Read about the democratic election that was supposed to unify Vietnam. You’ll find that the election was, in fact, canceled and it was canceled by the US-supported leader of South Vietnam.
I never said “back in the 50s there was some conference and they thought about an election, but whoever the leader was in the south didn’t want to do it”. I’m giving you actual historical information that you can go lookup. I think what’s really going on here is that you’re afraid of the past, or not willing to lookup the facts because you’re afraid of them. So, rather than face up to history and think, “Hmm.. maybe we should learn from our mistakes and misdoings” it’s much easier for you to try to throw slime at me and pretend I’m the evil bad guy.
There’s nothing really surprising in any of this history either. People who have power are concerned with precisely one thing: how to hold on to that power, or how to expand their power. Read about the First Indochina War between the French and the asians. The French were trying to hold onto their colonies in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia). I don’t know what the public opinion in France is now. Do they use your tactics and try to insult and ridicule people who acknowledge France’s actions at the time? What about England’s American colonies? I don’t really know what people in England think of that, but I sort of doubt that they act the way you are. Why do you think the South Vietnam government was much different? It was a government who was not supported by the people, thus they canceled the national unification election in order to hold onto power. That’s why all governments do what they do.. they just want to keep power. Or they want to expand their power. But that’s about it, it’s pretty simple.
If you’re such an open-minded person, you should be ashamed of yourself. Being insulting and trying to ridicule people you disagree with is not advancing your cause at all. It’s just demonstrating your lack of open-mindedness, your inability to conceive that your government and its officials are capable of abusing their power, and it’s showing your complete ignorance of history.

bonobo on September 29, 2006 at 3:38 pm

You said: Look, I’m not pushing liberal ideas here. I’m deliberately trying to avoid presenting much of my opinion, and I’m trying to put forth history.
But when one read’s what your writing we can only come to the conclusion that you are a hoplessly Leftist Liberal.
Why run from who you are? I’m proud to be a Conservative and will freely admit it. Why are so you reluctant to admit that your a Leftist?
It’s funny you consider my post hate speech. Did I hurt your self-esteem?
Your ideas are thoroughly discredited sir. No amount of repackaging will ever change the Liberal message. This is why you can’t win elections.
The American people know and understand your message and frankly, were tired of hearng it.
Just because a person chooses not to fill his mind with your bilge, does not mean that person has a closed mind. Maybe just closed to your non-sense

DurkaDurkaMohammed on September 29, 2006 at 6:22 pm

If you are so open minded and want a real history lesson, then visit this website:
This is real history, not some Leftish rewrite.

DurkaDurkaMohammed on September 29, 2006 at 6:25 pm

That’s not a history site, that’s another news portal. That’s fine, I’ll start reading that site also to see what they say, but you keep insisting that I’m rewriting history but you’re not giving me an example of what information I have falsified here. I’m giving you actual details here because I want you to actually look them up, and I welcome you to do that and prove me wrong. But instead of proving me wrong you’re just throwing words like “leftist” and “liberal” and stuff at me, as though those words somehow disprove what I’m saying. Sorry, but they don’t. If I say “the Earth orbits the Sun” and you start flinging “liberal” and “leftist” at me, does that prove me wrong? No? Then why do you think it does in this discussion?
So okay, maybe I’m much more liberal than you are (although I’ll argue against “leftist” because you clearly think it means the same thing as “liberal” and it does not). I’m not trying to hide that. But what I said here is that I’m not pushing liberal ideas, I’m presenting history. And I do stand by that statement. I’m not presenting much of my opinion here, I’m just giving you dates of events that occured. You seem to think that any facts you don’t like must be “left ideas”, and therefore there’s something wrong with the person presenting them. I’d much rather you give me an example of what I misrepresented.. e.g., “the election wasn’t supposed to be 1956, it was supposd to be [whenever] and it was Ho-Chi Minh who pulled out of it”. That would be a real statement, although it happens to be verifiably false as you will discover when you begin to read about the history.

bonobo on September 29, 2006 at 11:30 pm

I did forget to thank you for that link, though. Thanks very much for it! I promise I will start reading that site some. I hope you will also start researching some of the history I have posted on here so you can debate things.

bonobo on September 29, 2006 at 11:32 pm

You seem like a nice enough guy.
Please know that grew up in NY and understand the Liberal mindset. I have had it pounded into me since 1st grade right thru college. Some of my closest friends are Liberals.
I have heard multitudes of wonderfully articulate Liberals passionately defend their beliefs and have experienced your type of thinking far more than you realize.
My sharp responses are based on a lifetime of experiences with your mindset.
I mean no offense to you personally but those are my feelings based on extensive experience.
You should read that website. Perhaps you can be reasoned with. Time will tell. That webste is not just a news portal, it is a history lesson compliments of Dr. Jack Wheeler.
I would be curious to hear your analysis of his work.

DurkaDurkaMohammed on September 30, 2006 at 12:10 am

Hi Durka,
Thanks for deciding to be civil with me now. 🙂
It’s sort of interesting that you grew up in NY with a more liberal surrounding, because incidentally I am from Dallas, TX and grew up there in a very politically different environment. I moved up to Baltimore/Washington DC area for a short time, but I have lived most of my life around Dallas.
Despite that, I can’t say I really heard all the right-wing arguments because I never really cared about politics until the past few years. I was very oblivious to everything going on in the world and in politics. I don’t read any left-wing blogs and I am mostly developing my own opinions from reading history. This is actually the first right-wingish blog that I’ve started going to (but every cover story I’ve read by Debbie is completely devoid of real information, it’s all just flinging slime and buzzwords around at the things she doesn’t like, and it’s never presenting reasons for why she dislikes stuff.) I occasionally tune into a few TV shows like Countdown or Bill O’Reilly or Bill Maher. The only politically-oriented show that I really enjoy a lot is the Daily Show whenever, but I don’t consider that show to really be liberal. People act like it, and Jon Stewart, are on a crusade against right-wingers, but that’s not correct. The reality is that it is on a crusade against the horrible state of mass media in this country. That’s a very worthy crusade in my opinion.
I have become very interested in politics and in US foreign policy since the events of 9/11 (which was my first year of graduate school) and the things that have happened since then. I wasn’t alive in the Vietnam War time, and everything I say about that is really just historical accounts. I’m not trying to push some left-wing agenda on that, Vietnam War is history now. If you read what I’ve been writing about my opinion of the Iraq occupation in the comments Robin Williams movie article on this site you’d see that I’m actually not a supporter of the Democrats either. I do interject my opinion in some of the things I write here, but I honestly am trying to rely as much on verifiable fact as I can. If I fail to do that, then I’d be happy to be corrected.
What I’m interested in, politically, is making a great country even greater. I know I present a lot of the nastier sides of the US government and its foreign policy, and I will probably continue to do that, but it’s because our government’s actions should reflect our country to the rest of the world, and I don’t think that’s happening. If someone had said before the Vietnam War that our involvement would be supporting a militaristic government who might be facing a revolution because the vast majority of the people do not approve of how that government is ruling them and that said government is maintaining its power in a non-democratic fashion… do you think the American people would have supported the war? I don’t think so. I know that my opinion of the Iraq occupation is different from yours, but from all the evidence I can find the US government still has not given us the true reason for the invasion because each time they give us a reason it ends up being refuted later on. This makes me think, if they gave us the real reason, would the American people have supported the invasion? This isn’t a question of “what would the Democrats have done” or whatever, I don’t care about the Democrats. This is just a question of the US government reflecting the true beliefs of the people of America. As I said in the other article, some of my Muslim friends are confused and angered by the Iraq occuption for the same reason that they are angered by Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda terrorism. They consider bin Laden not to be a true Muslim because they say his actions do not reflect Islam. They’re confused and angered by the US invasion because they (incorrectly, imo) believe the US is a Christian nation and don’t understand how the invasion fits into the paradigm of Christian values.
I don’t believe it is verifiably known by the public yet what the true motivation for the Iraq invasion was. People can speculate about oil, or they can speculate that it was about developing a strategic advantage against Iran, but at this point that’s still speculation. All we know for sure is that the reasons that we were given (WMDs, fighting al-Quaeda) are false. This causes me to lose confidence in my government, and it makes me question how they are reflecting the ethical standards of Americans to the rest of the world. I want to live in a country I can be proud of, in a country whose actions are admirable and not just selfishly trying to gain more power and wealth. To that end, I would LOVE for people to be able to convince me that what my government is doing is reflecting positively of me and all other Americans and that they are giving us a reason to be proud. I will continue to live by my own ethical standards though, and I’ll be proud of that. But still I want the best of my country.
So, that’s pretty much my basis for political interest. I’m not really picking a side for the sake of being branded “liberal” or “conservative”, I’m much more interested in trying my best to take the route of reason and morality before the route of whatever Ann Coulter or Al Franken or whoever tells me to take. If Franken or whoever makes a good argument, great, if Ann Coulter makes a good argument, great. But I’ll do my best to make up my own mind rather than just jump on one side of the fence.

bonobo on September 30, 2006 at 1:34 am

I’ll read what Jack Wheeler has to say. Thanks for the link. It might take me awhile before I get back to you with any sort of analysis though. I’ve been reading a lot in the last year about the Middle East, Vietnam/Indochina wars, Cuba, and Nicaragua.. but there are massive numbers of details that I haven’t gotten into yet, and I’m not going to try to agree or disagree with what he says until I do some research of my own. Hopefully he’ll provide some sources for his information, that would be very helpful.

bonobo on September 30, 2006 at 1:41 am

If you are truthfully a newbie to the political scene, then let me give you a bit of advice.
First, your writing style and opinions are clearly left leaning. You can deny it and think your being objective, but your really not. You sound more like a leftist university professor than someone who is trying to find their way in the political world. I am not calling you names, just trying to give you critical analysis on your opinions.
Second, subscribe to that website, it is $9/month and will give you a better history and currents events lesson than all your college professors combined.
My time is always limited and therefore I am not really able to respond to your posts point for point. You have your ideas and opinions and that is fine. I just hope as you grow up and have more life experiences, you will realize that we are in a struggle for survival, as a country and people, everyday.
Just remember that you do not make something greater (America) by tearing us down and trying to make it seem like we are not the force for good in the world. WE ARE!
Perhaps you need to travel outside of Texas, maybe to Egypt or Kuwait or Indonesia and see how Moslems treat woman, minorities, homosexuals and other relgions. It will be a real eye opener for you. They have no value for life. They worship at the alter of death, destruction and religious converstion at the tip of the sword.
All the freemdoms of speech, religion, education, work and everything else we enjoy in this country, as citizens, is the direct result of the sacrifices of our military.
America would not be here today if it wasn’t for our military strenght. Just remmeber that and you will already start making the country better.

DurkaDurkaMohammed on October 1, 2006 at 5:59 pm

Before you get all misty-eyed about “courageous corporate America” you want to consider the following:
1. 7- Eleven, Inc. is an American corporation, owned by the Japanese, just as Citgo is an American corporation owned by Venezuela. Perhaps you should be speaking about Japanese corporate responsibility.
2. The decision to sever relations between 7-11 and Citgo was strictly a business decision made before Chavez’ remarks at the U.N. The story was reported by Reuters at
By your logic, a Citgo boycott would demonstrate American patriotism. That, however, would harm tens of thousands of American workers and a 15% reduction in petroleum imports would cripple our economy. Red, white, and blue Slurpees are not worth it.

da5id on October 4, 2006 at 2:21 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field