- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
CornbreadFed
| Favorite team: | Georgia  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 193 |
| Registered on: | 4/7/2023 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Forum
Message
re: If travel ball had existed in the 1920s
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 8:09 pm to Jim Rockford
Stuart
0
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 6:10 pm to Spoonbilla
quote:
Somewhere (not in Africa) a village has lost it's idiot. When your Mom eventually passes away (prayers) use some of her money to travel to Africa and learn something. Anything.
I’ve been to Africa including Zimbabwe. It’s an amazing continent and I’d recommend anyone to go there.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 5:53 pm to Serious Mug
quote:
Hard not to be peaceful when you are starved to the point of death. Any energy you do have is directed towards the acqusition of food. Africa is sooooooo peaceful. When the majority runs out of Whites, they kill each other. Very civilized continent. Ask the Tutsi. Rwanda genocide: 100 days of slaughter FACTS! Deal with it, boy. I'll bet you couldn't find Africa on a map.
Here you are again posting conspiritard crap from hill Billy TN shack smh
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 5:29 pm to teke184
quote:
Then take Rhodesia. Having Mugabe run Zimbabwe for 40 years resulted in the breadbasket of Africa becoming one of the biggest famine stricken areas in the world, mainly because that corrupt fricker thought that just giving whites’ farmland to blacks would make blacks successful. Colonial rule was no picnic. But that beats the horrors of a number of regimes who ran these countries afterward.
Africans risked their lives and died to end Rhodesian rule while Zimbabwe has been peaceful since. Rhodesia was hell on earth for the majority of the population and only benefited a very small minority. Idk how this is so hard for you to comprehend…Oh wait I know why lol.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 5:21 pm to teke184
quote:
Voters don’t always make the smart vote. They got independence and then a bunch of those nations went to shite afterward. Like Uganda. Queen Elizabeth or Idi Amin should be a no brainer.
As shvtty as they might be currently, I’d take being independent over being a colony any day. I think this topic might be a little too complex for you to mentally grasp.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 4:56 pm to teke184
quote:
British colonies? Generally better under colonial rule.
Then why did they vote to become independent lmao
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 4:22 pm to Serious Mug
quote:
Facts that will fall on deaf ears of the apologists. I posted factual links and will now exit this thread and watch them turn flips in denial. Not worth the time to argue with the low IQ idiots.
You posted conspiritard links from your hilly Billy bunker in bum frick TN.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 3:43 pm to Serious Mug
quote:
WHY? "Apartheid...." Guess what? Apartheid is back. Whites are being raped, tortured, murdered, and their land taken. Silence from the leftists and the liberals. I have a friend from South Africa. He now lives in Scotland. He left SA after two home invasion robberies. The second one he was shot and nearly died. Packed the family up and hit the road.
You are a literal dumb a$$. If this was true then the UN would’ve invaded by now.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 3:20 pm to Serious Mug
quote:
South Africa went the same way. When they let that old terrorist, Mandela, into power. South Africa went from being a vibrant, thriving, advanced nation to a violent ghetto in less than a decade. Rape Capital of the World.
The country was literally verge of a civil war. It’s a baby country too.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 3:14 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
Where I live it's about a 90% chance to be a young black male, 13-19 years old looking for guns. It's damn near a daily thread for some neighborhoods on Nextdoor with video. I see the occasionally white junkie video too but they seem to steal people's lawnmowers and stuff like that. I guess to sell it for drugs.
Soooo which one?
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 3:00 pm to sugar71
quote:
Many geonocides/ ethnocide were carried out in Europe within the last century & some perpetrators/ victims are still alive.
Europe was a shvthole to the point of exporting the most humans out of shvtty situations until the US bailed them out after WW2.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 2:24 pm to Proximo
quote:
You must not keep up with the carjacking and break-in trends if you think you’re making some kind of point
So up to date with the latest trends and statistics, but incapable of answering a basic question.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 2:19 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Statistic ain't lying. If you have a problem with facts and statistics that's on you.
How about you quit being a racist pvssy and answer my question. Who do you think is more likely to break in to your car? Obama’s kid or a poor white guy on meth?
re: OT Historians - Where Was Japan Getting Their Oil from During WWII?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 2:14 pm to LongueCarabine
quote:
That’s just plain stupid. Without Lend Lease the Russians would have been steamrolled.
Yet they were winning before Lend Lease took effect? Stop choking on the anti Ivan bandwagon dildo
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 2:02 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Well I’ve spent years on the continent in dozens of cities spread across about 8 different countries and yes it’s corrupt.
And Nola isn’t?
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 1:56 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
There are probably a few cities in Africa more dangerous than NOLA. But even NOLA has better infrastructure than nearly any city in Africa. Africa is incredibly corrupt, that’s not really debatable.
Really because Every African city I have visited proved this statement false?
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 1:54 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Still not nearly as violent as the South.
Gang violence in specific areas yes, but, it’s not like the residents of Mandeville are being terrorized on a daily basis.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 1:50 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Most places in Africa are infinitely safer than NOLA. But there are also much more dangerous places than NOLA in Africa.
Yes because we are comparing a continent to a city.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 1:45 pm to LemmyLives
quote:
Let's get specific and talk about Johannesburg, then. Africa is a giant continent and it is totally disingenuous to even group adjacent countries together.
I’ve been there and I just used basic common sense.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 1:42 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
Facts aren't racist. Black people have significantly higher violent crime rates than other races. Like 7 times higher. The reason a city like Boise is safe is mostly due to demographics.
Who is more than likely to break in to your car? Obama’s kid or a poor white guy drugged on meth?
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 1:27 pm to deltaland
quote:
It’s sad Africa is so dangerous and corrupt because it’s the most beautiful land in the world with amazing wildlife
I felt safer in Africa than I do in Nola. Quit being a pvvssy.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 11:06 am to rhar61
quote:
In statistics, an outlier is a data point that differs significantly from other observations.[1][2] An outlier may be due to a variability in the measurement, an indication of novel data, or it may be the result of experimental error; the latter are sometimes excluded from the data set.[3][4] An outlier can be an indication of exciting possibility, but can also cause serious problems in statistical analyses. Do a plot county-by-county of %black vs. any economic measure.
Why do you think this?
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 11:05 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Strangely its not as violent as the inner city. I wonder why.
I’d imagine a rural less densely populated state have less crime than concentrated poverty. Correct Mr. racist.
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 10:28 am to Globetrotter747
quote:
To be blunt, one of my biggest fears for the future of the USA is that blacks generally suck at running things and will take more and more government positions as minority populations increase.
West Virginia is doing so well man
re: Was sub-Saharan Africa better off under colonial rule?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 9:27 am to UFFan
OP had to sleep at a hotel tonight because his wife kicked him out to play with her African man.
re: Your dumbest pet peeve
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 8:40 am to thadcastle
1). When a person is constantly moving when I am sitting down
2). Being sat in a restaurant next to an alley where there’s constant traffic
2). Being sat in a restaurant next to an alley where there’s constant traffic
re: OT Historians - Where Was Japan Getting Their Oil from During WWII?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/28/23 at 12:07 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Russia would have lost huge if it hadn't been for Lend Lease and western assistance. Their logistical system was a nightmare even into '45 as the were entering Berlin. The US sent them 75,000 trucks in '43 and '44.
Lend lease just expedited Russian victory. The Germans had zero chance of winning WW2 so quit the copium.
re: OT Historians - Where Was Japan Getting Their Oil from During WWII?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/27/23 at 11:55 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I can and I am refuting your bull shite claim. In fact, I categorically refute your claim and call you a piece of shite liar.
Take the bet, bitch.
You provide proof I have denied the Holocaust I’ll leave the OT forever.
Or
You can’t find where I’ve denied the Holocaust and you leave the OT forever.
Put up or shut up, bitch. Do we have a bet?
I don’t negotiate with literal Holocaust deniers, sorry
re: OT Historians - Where Was Japan Getting Their Oil from During WWII?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/27/23 at 10:12 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
So I know nothing? Ok. Explain. Tell us all how I know nothing. I’ll wait.
What blatant racist calls himself a historian? Gtfo of here kiddo.
re: OT Historians - Where Was Japan Getting Their Oil from During WWII?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/27/23 at 10:07 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
There’s your problem. You have Google. I have over four decades of deep study of history with an emphasis on WWII. So the difference between you and I is I can tell when I’m reading bull shite on the internet and you can’t.
It’s apparent that you threw decades of your life in to the trash because you know absolutely nothing!
re: OT Historians - Where Was Japan Getting Their Oil from During WWII?
Posted by CornbreadFed on 5/27/23 at 9:17 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
He can’t post a legit link because it doesn’t exist. The notion Russia supplied Japan with oil throughout WWII is beyond laughable. 1. Russia needed all the oil it could produce. 2. Russia was heavily reliant on Lend Lease supplies of a myriad of items from the US. They’d never risk the flow of supplies from the US to sell oil to Japan. 3. Between 1932 and 1939, the Soviets and Japan had a series of border clashes in Manchuria culminating in a massive battle in 1939. Link
Did you get this from Star Wars Revenge of the Sith?
Popular
40
