horsefly

Is that it? You've just proved that everything I said is accurate. Now go and find yourself a personal tutor to get some remedial education so that you can begin to write something that shows some semblance of intelligibility. And by-the-way, to be accused by you of using profanities is just so wonderfully hilarious. I suggest you take a look at your previous pathetic abuse filled submissions.

I did say EXPLAIN what they have putatively got wrong. Your sentence makes no sense. Do try again.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/trump-envoy-warns-uk-threat-to-breach-brexit-deal-could-challenge-good-friday-agreement/ar-BB19DHvO?ocid=msedgdhp: "Donald Trump’s envoy to Northern Ireland has warned that Boris Johnson’s controversial threat to break the law over Brexit could present a “challenge” to the peace process under the Good Friday Agreement." “What we're saying is, we've read the Internal Market Bill, we can see how maybe under certain circumstances it might in the future create a challenge to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement." “Everybody believes that if there's a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, we pretty much know what that leads to,” So Brexsh*teers even Trump's Republicans can see that it is Johnson's egregious law-breaking internal market bill that threatens the GFA and not the EU. Do explain to us what they have misunderstood. And please don't just cut and paste from that pathetic Brexitfacts4tw*ts site, actually explain to us where they have gone wrong in their analysis. I won't hold my breath.

Where have all the Trump supporters gone? Maybe they're self-isolating!

The loans of Amadou and Duda provide an interesting way to consider the two different perspectives trading on this thread. Broadly speaking, one perspective says we should have thrown a lot more money at signings in trying to stay up, the other perspective says Weber and co were right to proceed more cautiously in order to protect the financial security of the club. Both Amadou and Duda are considered high quality footballers (and I certainly don't recall anybody on this site saying otherwise when we contracted them on loans). So let's imagine we had bought those players outright instead of loaning them. At the time they arrived their combined (estimated) values would have involved a layout of something around £30m+. I assume both perspectives would agree that such an outlay would have pretty much maxed out our budget and shown the "ambition" craved for by the first perspective. The actual subsequent performance of those players, however, shows that the outlay of that money would not have resulted in our premier league survival. The gamble wouldn't have paid off. We would then have been left with a very significant financial hole to fill, a situation that would have been exploited by predator clubs knowing that we were desperate for cash. But of course we didn't make that gamble and followed the cautious approach of the second perspective. Thus not only did we not blow huge amounts of money, but also by remaining financially stable we have been able to resist exploitation by predator clubs and obtain the true value for players we choose to sell. So for me, the cautious approach of the second perspective wins hands down.

Looking on the positive side; at least the presence of a virus inside his body has doubled his IQ score.

Is this the first time in medical history that a virus has infected an organism that is lower down the evolutionary chain than itself? These questions must be answered.

Clearly, such a time calls for great solemnity. So may I recommend the following pieces of music from Handel:

HAHAHA! I think we all know the answer to that. The article is also dated 4th September.

I think he's busy at his second job modelling colours for the Dulux Gammon range. But don't worry, Swindon will be along soon with a searing and incisive analysis showing that this proves the EU are in full retreat and about to give in to all our demands

You are clearly suffering from some sort of mental retardation. My account started recently and I have already posted several times on the football thread. Indeed, I even started one of those threads. Try using that very small brain of yours you buffoon. It really doesn't take much effort to check out facts like these. But then you did vote for Brexsh*t so checking the facts is clearly not your thing. Instead of spouting this sort of pathetic guff why don't you address the arguments I have presented. You say I spread nonsense then why don't you explain why you think it's nonsense? I will happily deal with any argument that you want to put forward. But of course we all know you aren't going to do that, because you simply don't possess the intellectual capacity. So by all means carry on spouting your right-wing bile without a scintilla of evidence or reason, but don't think for one minute that there won't be several of us here pointing out the utter stupidity of what you say

My response to that is again to point to all the post-debate polls where Biden has come out top, and to the record amount of money donated to Biden during the course of the debate. That all points to the conclusion that Trump didn't do well by "slagging off" Biden like that, rather it played into Biden's hands. Trump came across as an out of control thug, while Biden seemed more controlled, more civilised and more presidential. That surely can not be a good tactic (as many of his supporters are now admitting (see my post above for the link)).

Trump volunteered to condemn whatever group Wallace suggested. In the cross-talk, the name “Proud Boys” emerged, and Trump criticized them. Trump then noted — correctly — that the violence going on in the country is mostly left-wing -- Because it is. It's a simple four word sentence "I condemn white supremacists". It really is quite astounding that a president of the United States of America refuses to utter them. He was asked in the debate to actually say the words that he condemned white supremacy, and he didn't. Just a few moments ago he was asked by reporters to say those words, and he didn't. The fact is, he is relying on white supremacists votes to boost his failing support. No amount of transparently poor sophistry can disguise this man's bigotry and racism. Anyone who aligns themselves with him taint their own character with his repulsive ideology.

And regarding our biggest industry (financial services) we have this news: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/eu-financial-services-chief-will-cut-off-city-of-london-if-necessary/ar-BB19A59Y?ocid=msedgntp RUSSELS/LONDON (Reuters) - The European Union is ready for every type of Brexit, including granting no further EU access to Britain's financial sector, the bloc's candidate for financial services chief said in a document seen by Reuters. After Dec. 31, when a transition deal ahead of a full-blown Brexit ends, financial services companies in Britain will have to access the EU via its "equivalence" system. The EU has already granted temporary access to UK clearing houses from January under this regulatory regime. Mairead McGuinness, the EU's financial services commissioner designate, said from January there would be significant changes in financial services between Britain and the EU, regardless of whether UK-EU talks that continue this week reach on a free trade agreement. "As tensions in the overall EU-UK negotiations have increased, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios, including a no further equivalences scenario," McGuinness said in written answers to EU lawmakers ahead of her confirmation hearing in the European Parliament on Friday. "Market participants are urged to take all necessary steps by the end of 2020 to prepare for all possible outcomes, she said. "It will not be business as usual as, in any case, UK financial services firms will lose the benefit of the financial services passport." The EU is currently undertaking an "unprecedented" exercise of parallel assessments of many equivalence areas with respect to Britain, said McGuinness, a veteran Irish centre-right member of the European Parliament. But the UK's stated intention to diverge from some EU rules "will naturally have consequences" for those assessments, she also said in the written answers. McGuinness said any equivalence would come with strict conditions. "Should equivalence be granted in a particular area, it will need to be accompanied by ... commitments not to deviate from the EU framework for the period covered by the equivalence decision," she said. The EU will continue to champion open trade but will not be naive about defending its own interests, she said. But don't worry guys SwindonCanary has informed us that the EU have caved in and will give us what we want. Thank God for his remarkable insight

I'm sure you're right that it is probably more an anti-Trump response than a pro-Biden one. Biden is clearly benefitting from an "anyone but that grotesque ****" feeling that Trump only confirmed by his behaviour in the debate. Trump needed to win over that small group of un-decided who are mainly middle-class suburbanites. Thus it was utterly reckless to behave like a white supremacist bully. It might have pleased the Proud Boys and his hardcore redneck support, but he had their votes already. I guess he just doesn't have the intellectual nous or moral capability to control his natural right-wing extremist ego.

Interesting you say that but the evidence seems to suggest something different happening in the US: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/biden-campaign-celebrates-record-fundraising-haul-while-mocking-trump-s-tired-and-angry-debate-performance/ar-BB19A5yf?ocid=msedgntp "Joe Biden’s presidential campaign has announced a record-breaking fundraising haul during the final hour of the debate between the former vice president and Donald Trump on Tuesday night, announcing it raised $3.8 million in just 60 minutes."

Yep! it's confirmed, you're a tw*t

You've written just one sentence and you can't even make that intelligible. But then again you did say elsewhere that you have first-hand experience of dementia.

So very, very dumb. Fools by name, Fools by nature. Even Trump's own side thought his performance was sh*te: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/politics/even-rush-limbaugh-admits-trump-s-debate-strategy-didn-t-work/ar-BB19AnRH?ocid=msedgntp Some of President Trump's staunchest supporters didn't love his debate performance. During Tuesday night's first presidential debate, Trump barely let Democratic nominee Joe Biden — or moderator Chris Wallace — get a word out. He meanwhile refused to denounce white supremacy or answer questions about his taxes, leading some Fox News hosts and even members of Trump's own party to call out his missteps. Asked Wednesday, several Republican senators had brief criticisms for the debate. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) described the faceoff as a "sh-tshow," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) called it "awful," and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) recommended the president "restrain himself a little" next time. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) meanwhile said "I thought it was an embarrassment," though it wasn't clear if he and the other senators were calling out Trump, Biden, Wallace, or the debate as a whole. Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh was a little softer on Trump, but he still had some criticism. "He had a strategy, and the strategy didn't work. But he had a strategy. And he undermined his own strategy," Limbaugh said Wednesday. So very very dumb

So a laughing emoji is all you can manage in your "defence". Thought so!

Why not have a go at saying something intelligible that might actually contribute to the debate. It might be worth you asking yourself whether you really should be on a thread which challenges your intellectual capacity so severely. It's very hard not to insult you when you pour out such drivel and nonsense.

Is that all you've got to offer?

Now try saying whatever it is you're trying to say, in something that represents a normal and understandable English sentence.

God you're so dumb. It wasn't the Independent playing it down, it was the host of the TV program who played it down: "...anchor Felicidad Aveleyra warns in Spanish, “This isn’t a scientific poll." No indeed! it was a phone in/twitter poll, nothing like a properly constructed survey of opinion. And you somehow forget to mention the properly constructed poll mentioned in the same article a few lines down: "In general, Biden retains a decisive lead among Latinos, with 62 percent supporting him over Trump, according to a mid-September the Wall Street Journal/NBC/Telemundo poll." How thick do you have to be to link to an article which demonstrates the very opposite of what you are claiming. It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you and Swindon

You seem very reluctant to provide us with any evidence from the post-debate polls, so perhaps I can help you out there with a few: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/30/reliable-polls-show-that-biden-won-debate-so-those-arent-what-trumps-allies-are-highlighting/ Reliable polls show that Biden won the debate — so those aren’t what Trump’s allies are highlighting https://inews.co.uk/us-election-2020/president-debate-polls-latest-polling-after-trump-vs-biden-who-will-win-us-election-671260 CNN’s post-debate poll found that 60 per cent of viewers believed Mr Biden won the debate, while just 28 per cent saw President Trump as the victor https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/who-won-debate-trump-biden-polls-a4559606.html A CBS poll, conducted immediately after the debate, found that 48 per cent of people believed Mr Biden won. Trump was close behind, with 41 per cent of respondents In the UK, Britain Elects conducted a Twitter poll, showing that UK watchers also favoured Mr Biden. As of 9.50 am, Britain Elects saw Mr Biden lead with 49.6 per cent over Mr Trump’s 29.3 per cent. I now look forward to seeing your poll evidence to support the ludicrous claim that Trump won.