Crop Top Wearing King Of Thailand Vs. Facebook | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

Crop Top Wearing King Of Thailand Vs. Facebook

0

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

The King of Thailand went on a purchasing trip in a crop top, somebody posted it to Facebook as well as the King was NOT happy. Cenk Uygur and also Ana Kasparian, the hosts of The Young Turks, review monarchies. Tell us just what you assume in the remark area below.

Find out more right here:

" Thai authorities are demanding that Facebook get rid of humiliating video footage of their king in a mall, wearing a plant top and also showing off phony tattoos, in a test of the country's rigorous censorship regulations.

The video clip of King Maha Vajiralongkorn, 64, walking around a shopping center with a lady was supposedly recorded in Munich in July 2016, and also was extensively shared on the social media network.

Takorn Tantasith, secretary-general of the National Broadcasting and also Telecom Commission (NBTC), revealed on Thursday that the authorities would file a claim against.

The legal action would first be against Facebook Thailand as well as its companions, he claimed, inning accordance with The Bangkok Post." *.

Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian.

Cast: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian.

***.

The Largest Online Information Show in the Globe. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and also Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET.

Sign up for The Young Turks on YouTube:.

Like The Young Turks on Facebook:.

Follow The Young Turks on Twitter:.

Acquire TYT Merch:.

Download and install sound as well as video clip of the full two hour program on-demand + the members-only post video game show by ending up being a member at. Your subscription sustains the daily procedures and also is essential for our ongoing success as well as growth.

Youthful Turk (n), 1. Young dynamic or anarchical member of an establishment, motion, or political celebration. 2. A young adult that rebels against authority or societal assumptions.( American Heritage Dictionary).

Share Your Comments

54 comments

  1. Posted by Hal Jordan, at Reply

    Even their kings are lady-boys.

    • Posted by XLastXOneX, at Reply

      How culturally insensitive of you… LeL…

  2. Posted by Alchemy Child, at Reply

    Monarchies are stupid

    • Posted by Justakez, at Reply

      Thailand is partial monarchy but I agree it’s really stupid and is one of the reason why Thailand can’t really progress as a country.

    • Posted by Alchemy Child, at Reply

      Is the monarchy corrupt?

    • Posted by Visut Innadda, at Reply

      no we don’t progress because of shitty corrupted politicians. monarch has no political roll here they are more like an independent NGO doing whatever their agenda is at a given time like responding to natural disaster managing artificial rain system etc. Monarch don’t do any policy writing or governing.

  3. Posted by Luc Buydens, at Reply

    At least our head of state is not Trump. Every American should be very quiet right now about “kings”.

    • Posted by Vishank Jain-Sharma, at Reply

      Not really. Our citizens are stupid, but it shows how great our constitution is that wannabe authoritarians get wrecked so easily, whereas in any other country they’d be in power for decades. Trump’s already a lame duck 4 months in because of the power of our democratic institutions—how’s Thailand doing?

    • Posted by Alex Fontes, at Reply

      your constitution is not that great bro, since the obvious flaw exploited by trump, the one that anyone can become a president, and you appear to be oddly proud of, is still in action, how’s the most racist bigot country in the world doing by the way?

    • Posted by Vishank Jain-Sharma, at Reply

      yup, I am proud of the constitution that’s resulted in the longest continual republic in the world. I guarantee you your country has a more unstable system. And anyone should be able to be president as long as the voters approve, I don’t see what your point is.

  4. Posted by Cettywise, at Reply

    Can someone make a montage of him shopping to the I’m too sexy song by right said fred? Thanks.

    • Posted by Will Sorrentino, at Reply

      Cettywise lol

  5. Posted by Brain Stem Soup, at Reply

    The king of Thailand is triggered by a viral video of him being him. That means he is inherently disgusted with himself and thinks what he is wearing and doing is offensive. By that logic I call for the King of Thailand to be locked up for insulting the King of Thailand.

    • Posted by XLastXOneX, at Reply

      So says Dr. Professor Armchair Liberal Arts YouTube man P.H.D. M.D. J.D. M.B.A. U.F.C…

  6. Posted by Nexu Jin, at Reply

    The king was insulted by the low resolution images, poor lighting, lack of optical zoom & image stabilization and incorrect pose for a paparazzi picture.

    • Posted by WallyDaDeity, at Reply

      Nexu Jin Best comment yet…­čśé­čśé­čśé

    • Posted by LM4277, at Reply

      Nexu Jin And by bitchassness and fuccboism. King of booty grobbling, more like.

    • Posted by Justin M, at Reply

      Not to mention that he’s walking around in public……but is now insulted when people see him? It makes no sense.

    • Posted by WallyDaDeity, at Reply

      dude secretly gay and a gangster with tht top and those tats

  7. Posted by Fusion, at Reply

    This reminds me of when the Zimbabwe dictator tripped and fell and fired his whole bodyguard team for not diving on the floor in front of him to break his fall lmao

    • Posted by Ma'chello, at Reply

      hahahahahahjah

  8. Posted by Chaz Scott, at Reply

    I just realized that Cenk can’t go to Thailand now. hahaha

    • Posted by Ursus Arctos, at Reply

      Chaz Scott I don’t know why anyone would want to go there. I was working with an ECPAT organization to help break up human trafficking and other sex-related criminal activity and saw some of the most vile things imaginable. Also, within the first year of being there I contracted Hepatitis A from the water despite the fact that I had previously been vaccinated for Hepatitis A.

  9. Posted by Geo Emmanuel, at Reply

    The UK is making lots of money with their monarchy. plus their monarchy also has a lot of goodwill in the minds of Australians and Canadians. that’s why they are not closing those institutions. it’s political and economical.

    • Posted by Teethgrinder 83, at Reply

      Geo Emmanuel can you imagine our queen walking about with a crop top shopping though? ­čśé

    • Posted by Geo Emmanuel, at Reply

      True, but the scale of popularity is a lot different. Thai king did that coz he thought no one would recognise him, i don’t think British monarch will do something like that coz they know hoe recognisable they are around the world.

    • Posted by Liam Ions, at Reply

      yes but the queen also dose not threaten to arrest people for insulting the royal family or posting memes about her online. the royal family in the uk probably has more of positive effect than a negative so there is no reason not to keep them around that dont have any real decision making power anyway.

  10. Posted by Ursus Arctos, at Reply

    Does anybody know if the tattoos are real or not? If they aren’t real it makes the crop top more cringeworthy. Like he wore it just to show off his sick fake tattoos.

    • Posted by ROSEpetal52, at Reply

      Ursus Arctos They are fake tattoos supposedly , watch pop trigger channels video.

  11. Posted by bea marla, at Reply

    they are gay haters in Thailand,┬á the flaming gay king of Thailand does not want anyone to know he loves boys. I feel like he is somehow related to trump…..all in their feelings and overly sensitive.

    • Posted by bea marla, at Reply

      +Guy Parris. don’t you know its not polite for gay kings to use that kind of language.

  12. Posted by Neil Price, at Reply

    Monarchy in modern democratic times is not what you Yanks think. In it’s simplest terms the British Monarchy has “No Official Political Power”, but they are now used as a sort of safety feature. If the British Government goes against our laws the Monarch is legally obliged to remove the sitting government and force an election to get a new one. Like┬áthere being the House of Commons and the House of Lords which are supposed to balance the laws that are enacted and keep the government “honest”┬á(which the House of┬áLords have done to David Cameron’s annoyance). The┬áBritish Monarch in essence┬átakes┬átotal power from the politicians. Our Police force, Judiciary and armed forces are all “run” by organisations directly linked to the Crown. They are not Political Offices and are not run as such.┬áChurchill, for example, demanded┬áour generals to attack the Axis powers constantly. We did not have any resources to spare, so they refused, instead we came up with what was known as “The Ministry of Dirty Tricks” which is the basis of all modern covert operation organizations. Monarchy is not irrelevant, it is just that their purpose is not a day-to-day occurrence, but it is for “A worst case scenario” when/if our government goes against the needs of the people and that has happened. In the 1920’s the government had infighting due to economic problems just after a general election, the Prime┬áMinster Ramsey MacDonald went to the King and tried to resign. The King would not accept his resignation as it was too soon after┬áthe election and would cause total chaos. King George V told MacDonald to approach other parties in parliament to create a coalition government instead. This wasn’t altogether successful, but it stabilised the country. Your President is also your Commander in Chief. British Soldiers, Sailors and Airman have continually argued against government policy that conflicts with Military necessity. Your President can fire any Soldier, Sailor or Airman who disobeys/disagrees with their policies. How can this work? They are a Politician what do they know about fighting? Or the codes of conduct that all Military personnel follow.

    • Posted by Stephen Nootens, at Reply

      So if I understand you right, they sort of safety valve, so if let’s say the Prime┬áMinister turns out┬áto be┬áethical and moral corrupt and doesn’t think parts of the constitution doesn’t apple to him and┬áhis crazy,┬áthe┬ámonarchy steps in and remove them. Then they┬áhave another election┬áfrom which hopefully the get a┬ásaner government.

  13. Posted by Captain Beefheart, at Reply

    Don’t go to Thailand, Ana. Just this segment is a crime in Thailand. While his father may have let every one convicted of Les Majeste off the charge, his son WILL NOT.

  14. Posted by Tommy Hansen, at Reply

    I have to somewhat disagree with the statement of abolishing all monarchies. We have a monarchy in Denmark, and I believe it is the oldest in Europe, but we also have a Parliament, and our Queen has no say in the laws that are passed and more. And if I made a joke of the Queen or any one in the royal family, nothing would happen.

    • Posted by Example !, at Reply

      Tommy Hansen what’s the point of having a royal family then.

    • Posted by Bart Kroon, at Reply

      A living symbol of our country history and culture.

    • Posted by Example !, at Reply

      Bart Kroon or look at it as a random family no different than you whose luxury is paid for by your taxes.

  15. Posted by myconoclast, at Reply

    Can’t wait for John Oliver to pick this up!!

    • Posted by Paulo Frota, at Reply

      And I can’t wait to try to pick YOU up… ­čśë

    • Posted by myconoclast, at Reply

      Well you won’t get very far

  16. Posted by Patte-chan, at Reply

    Isn’t Thailand de facto controlled by a military junta? They were probably the ones to issue the takedown notice. I wouldn’t be surprised if Vajiralongkorn didn’t even care for it.

    • Posted by Bryant Kauk, at Reply

      Patte-chan Yea I have a cousin that lives in Thailand she says the whole police force is corrupt asf

  17. Posted by Sailor Venus, at Reply

    Raindrop, Droptop
    King of Thailand in a crop-top

    • Posted by Dwight Schrute, at Reply

      I hope this gets top comment, you deserve it

  18. Posted by James R., at Reply

    I’m kinda insulted by Cenk’s monologue.
    You know, I don’t think the U.K. should get rid of their monarchy. The Queen is the head of state of many countries, meaning these countries don’t have presidents. It irks me to think a *POLITICIAN* in my country would be put on any pedestal, such as that of president. The parades, the ostentatious presidential residences, the whole kit and kaboodle, let the U.K. pay for that, they get quite a return in tourist money, as well as the fact that the monarchs are way more respectable than your average politician. The English monarchy is a physiological and legal cap at the top of many democratic countries, this means it’s extra difficult to consolidate power in government because the prime ministers are just one of the people in parliament and not in an isolated position of power. I look at Turkey’s president as a sign of warning. There is no single legal entity above him. It also gives the population someone they know is the “leader” of all of them even when a particularly partisan leader is elected. ~cough couch~ The English monarchy serves a useful purpose as an none involved legal entity.

    • Posted by Spoder Man, at Reply

      So people worship an old hag for no reason and it’s make your country money. Seems like easy money, but her position is outdated and pointless. How is the president put on a pedestal even comparable to a pedestal of royalty who have done nothing but be born to the correct family? And there is no governmental advantage to a monarchy, we have checks and balances in the US. Turkey is just a bunch of genocidal Muslims which will go haywire again one day

    • Posted by James R., at Reply

      Worship an old hag? Maybe it’s your perspective of monarchs but they represent the identity of the people, they’re someone who remains constant. They’re hardly worshiped (Also if your against people being wealthy because of the family they were born into then you must support the inheritance tax, right?). Anyway It’s not my country, I live in one of the commonwealth nations. I was saying presidents are put on a pedestal compared to politicians in my country. Here they’re treated like civil servants who lose their position with no huge fuss when they’re doing a rubbish job. The amount of money, time and ceremony that goes into a presidential election in America is just for show, “The Democracy Show” see it live at 8pm tonight. Presidents exist based on the “outdated and pointless” logic that a nation needs a special person to be the leader, with a special position to which they enact their agenda. No *ONE* human being is wise or intelligent enough to hold such a position of power. That’s why the monarch has little to no power and the prime minister is beholden to the other elected people who form their government.

    • Posted by Spoder Man, at Reply

      Whatever, keep giving your taxes so an old hag can sit around and do nothing. Complete cuckery

    • Posted by James R., at Reply

      Not my taxes.

  19. Posted by Stephen Nootens, at Reply

    It should be note since no has yet to do so that Queen Elizabeth joined the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service where she was trained as a driver and a mechanic. Her grandson Prince Harry serviced in combat in Afghanistan.

    • Posted by Angel Gd, at Reply

      So they deserve lavish lifestyles and unearned wealth for doing something millions of people do?

  20. Posted by Doreen Green, at Reply

    The UK has a Monarchy, but they don’t make the rules or anything. They’re more like figureheads or a tourist attraction.

    The US has Disneyland, the UK has Buckingham palace.

    • Posted by Mogroka K, at Reply

      Thailands King also does not have real power also his pretty much a figure head.