I'd hazard a guess that it was something like this:
https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/06/24/fantastic-solstice-parade-weather-greets-1000-naked-and-painted-people-on-bikes-nsfw/

This reminds me of the Fremont Solstice Parade in Seattle: some of the most amazing body paint I've ever seen on the naked bike riders.

Why isn’t she charged with spreading child porn? The girls were under 18, she made videos of them naked and spread them around. She should do a few years per picture and be on the sex offender registry for life...also should be banned from using computers or electronic communications.
The spoofing her identity is good evidence she knew it was against the law. I hope they don’t let her use the excuse she didn’t know it was wrong, because clearly she did.
Now the poor Karen is upset she’s being harassed?! Just wait until you get to gen pop and the word gets out it’s for making fake kiddy porn, biatch!
I hope those girls get every dime she owns in their defamation lawsuits and then some.

Yes, but are you baked?

This is a serious question with universal consequences.

Also: are you naked?

When it’s a white household searched with a “valid” warrant after police calmly waited at the door over 1/2 an hour, you said “ When governments fear the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”.

When it’s a black household violently invaded without a valid warrant, door smashed, naked victim handcuffed at gunpoint for an hour, and the police hide the evidence for over a year with even the mayor complicit in the coverup you say this...” An hour of shame for a retirement package. Not a bad trade.”

How, exactly, do you convince yourself you aren’t a total racist troll?

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

Great, now Deadpool is going to want to do his own naked shoe commercial.

That's the laugh I would usually hear when women see me naked for the first time.

Your video, Josie Gibson Gets Naked With Naturists | This Morning, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Woman beats half-naked, 300-pound man with bat, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 480 Badge!

Yes, he planned to commit suicide on stage, the event owner found out he was serious and cancelled the show, he went home and did it alone.
His stage shows usually ended with him naked, bleeding, and sometimes covered in shit.

As for the translation, I just pulled apart and recombined what you wrote. Come on. Bleeding hearts and artists....and bleeding artists. ;-)

He has no choice.
He HAS to make up lies about Biden that are at least on par with the videos of Trump being exponentially worse, or it's Siberia for him.

His hero is on multiple video recordings lusting after little girls, from his own young daughter to the underage contestants in his beauty pageants that he forces to get naked in front of him to strangers, 10 year olds he says he'll date soon....and not in a joking way.
Then there's his brotherhood with Epstein, getting naked massages by 15 year olds and private parties with only him, Epstein, and dozens of very young unchaperoned girls.
There's also the little issue the 25 credible women who currently accuse him of rape, and the hundreds barred by their NDAs from making accusations....but he knows similar accusations against Biden would never fly, so they're easing in, as you said, to constantly evolving charges. There's one blatantly false accusation by an adult, so he says "fondling little girls ", which he's never been accused of in multiple ways, but Trump has bragged about doing it repeatedly and has multiple accusers. By the election, they'll claim Biden rapes little girls with Epstein too, and has a secret love child named Barron with his daughter.

If he can't convince people Biden is the same kind of kiddy rapist, he knows he's lost a big vote block. Too bad for him he's used up every iota of trust and can't be believed about anything.

Projection doesn't work when the audience knows the truth, @bobknight33...and the entire world knows Trump is a pedophile and Biden is honorable and nothing like Trump the well known proud public pedophile.

I have been made aware of someone Zoom conferencing in their bedroom when their wife walked out naked after a shower and then hit the floor when she realized that the entire office was on the call.

And--on Wednesday, some one on a call I was on turned off their video and then---went, LOUDLY, to the bathroom and flushed the toilet.
lol

No one called them out.