Yeah, from the pictures in the article, that’s at “worst” underwear ads. Very mainstream ones.
Are we suggesting this is maybe majorly overblown fake news with a teeny pea of reality at the center. Gosh, what sort of people would do this to a (admittedly incautious) D politician?
If “exactly zero” is the standard, then they haven’t just banned CBD; they’ve banned everything.
But the claims made by sellers of CBD are just as meaningless as those of any other merchants of “herbal remedies”.
It would be better, perhaps, if his mouth weren’t hanging open (as if he was lost in contemplation of scantily clad women), even if it wasn’t caused by what he’s looking at.
Also, I wonder how the pictures taken by a fellow passenger found their way into a tweet? Did the passenger know who he is? I sure wouldn’t. Apparently there’s no safety in relative obscurity.
I’m more impressed that a Congressman is flying coach instead of at least Business class. Doesn’t he have some kind of expense account?
That Daily Mail article says PORN (in all caps) in the headline but then the article itself says “sexually explicit photographs”, “images of models in suggestive poses”, “sexualized pictures” or “risqué photos”. All of which could describe a perfume ad or Victoria’ Secret fashion show. Well, except for “sexually explicit.”
Plus, well, the Daily Mail.
The Daily Fail is the most dishonest and sleaziest rag and website you’ll ever find, so I’m not surprised about that little “exaggeration”. That’s actually one of the most minor crimes they have committed in reporting. No accusation against @Smapti who linked to it, they explicitly apologized for doing so in lack of other sources.
Isn’t the Daily Mail known for photos of “scantily clad” women in “suggestive poses”?
Best to avoid looking at their website when traveling on a public conveyance.
All British tabloids are (or have been, I don’t know if they still do it) known for their topless page 3 girls. “Bild”, the German equivalent of a cheap British rag used to skip even that and was published with a topless woman on the very front page every day (and some more nude pics in the inside), but even those sleazes came to the conclusion that this practice was unbearable and stopped it some ten years ago.
Did he have a wide stance?
And if the people in question had clothes on, even if only enough to cover their genitals, IMO “sexually explicit” is a flat out lie.
That’s what the Daily Fail does, day after day…
Moron cop thinks he’s part of the game.
Can someone translate this for people who are ignorant of football? What does jogging up the tunnel mean? What is bumping someone? If the player had just made a touchdown, why was the trooper yelling at him?
The tunnel is how players get to and from the field of play.
It’s when part of your body bumps into part of their body.
The player was a member of the visiting team so he gave him a hard time for scoring against the cop’s team.
You know, If you scroll Facebook and pause for a moment on a picture with a busty lady you get fed quite a few of those photos to slow your scrolling a bit when they pop up.
Scoring against my team? That sounds like a felony.
I’d say that even a clothed model can be sexually explicit, depending on pose, gestures, etc. But even so, an underwear ad is still just an underwear ad.
As for the football cop: Getting removed from the game day assignment looks to me, from the video, like about the best possible outcome for him. Most of the possible outcomes of that involve a hospital.
I’m honestly surprised he didn’t start shooting.