ROB SCHNEIDER: Colbert gets crash course in what freedom of speech really means
I also respect Colbert's direct criticism of his employer, CBS/Paramount and his opinion that they caved to President Trump when they settled their lawsuit against the sitting president. That took guts, I will give him that. But Colbert, like ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel, excluded conservatives completely from his show and limited (prevented) his audience from hearing opposing viewpoints.
Colbert fed liberal slop to his liberal-minded Kamala supporters and cared less about challenging them intellectually by actually appealing to their higher nature or engaging in thought-provoking debate. Nah, just keep sh---ing on half the country that is no longer afraid to say women don't have penises and boys shouldn't get to beat up girls in girls' sports. So while I support Mr. Colbert's First Amendment right to free speech, that constitutionally only applies to the government not being able to silence you or seek reprisals. As for CBS/Paramount, they are a private company and they pay the bills… Or used to. So they can fire anyone they want! And Colbert, who earned an estimated $20 million salary, was reportedly losing the company $40 million per year.
That's the potential price tag for using your "Free Speech." It is not free from consequence. I, too, have experienced repercussions, both financial and career-wise, for my willingness to express my thoughts and opinions in the public square. For my outspoken support of parents who's children suffered neurological disorders from a mandated drug their pediatrician assured them was completely safe but turned out not to be, I lost work. In 2023, I was fired from a movie because of my opinions on the COVID vaccine and my public statements against people being forced to take it. I'm proud of that. And I was disgusted that Colbert had dancing syringes on his talk show, cajoling his audience into taking the experimental gene therapy while he and Kimmel and even President Biden shamed and belittled the unvaccinated. Kimmel even suggested that those who refused to take the 'vaccine' should be denied treatment in the hospital.
While CBS claims the firing of Colbert is purely financial, his show being the most expensive in late night and being consistently walloped in ratings by the superior Gutfeld!, the timing is suspicious. Yes, these pricey late-night relics are on their way out. More people will read this tweet than the number of 18-35-year-old demographic that is the be-all-end-all for TV advertisers, so the writing was on the wall. But pissing off his bosses at the network made their financial decision even easier and apparently speedier.
All of us who make our living being paid by the conglomerate behemoths who own and run show business must decide what, how much and when to use and exercise our freedom of speech. I, for one, value my freedom of speech more than making money at the expense of watching my culture and country get sucked into the Woke totalitarian demonizing, shaming and censoring machine that Colbert and Kimmel had no problem going along with and profiting from. Now the time has come when companies like CBS/Paramount, who used to be immediately cowed by the Woke mob of illiberal lunatics, are not so scared anymore. And they shouldn't be. The freak show Woke empire of intolerance and envy in the guise of good manners has fallen from its purity-enforced grace and America's flirtation with repackaged communism is dead.
Finally, it may be okay to say on any remaining late-night talk shows that women do not have penises, men don't get pregnant, and children should not be mutilated. I wish Mr. Colbert much success in whatever he does next. Show business is a tough business.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New poll finds 96% Idaho voters say public lands should remain in public hands
More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land, including this high altitude lake at the base of Thompson Peak in the Sawtooth Wilderness. (Photo by Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun) Ninety-six percent of all registered voters in Idaho believe that public lands should remain in public hands, according to a new poll paid for by Conservation Voters for Idaho. The poll was conducted in the aftermath of a federal proposal from U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to make millions of acres of public land in the U.S., including in Idaho, available to be sold off. The poll specifically asked Idaho voters questions about Idaho public lands and who they support in Idaho's 2026 U.S. Senate race. Alexis Pickering, executive director of Conservation Voters for Idaho, said she has never in her career seen Idahoans from all sides of the political spectrum unite behind a single issue like they have behind public lands this year. 'It really is clear that voters are unified in keeping public lands in public hands,' Pickering said in a phone interview Wednesday. 'It demonstrates that Idaho voters are very cognizant of this fight right now,' Pickering said. 'They are very engaged, and they are not going to sit this out.' More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land of some form. The polling firm Change Research conducted the poll among 1,027 registered Idaho voters from July 15-17. The margin of error was 3.2%, according to Change Research. One poll question asked voters, 'Did you support or oppose the amendment to sell off over 3 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, including Idaho?' – with 87% of respondents saying they opposed it. Battles over public lands loom even after sell-off proposal fails Another poll question asked voters which statement came closest to their opinion: Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should remain public and be protected so that everyone can keep enjoying them. Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should be made available for purchase and private ownership. Ninety-six percent of Idaho registered voters said public lands should remain public, including 97% of registered Democrats and 95% of registered Republicans, the poll found. Lee withdrew his amendment to sell public lands after a public backlash and three of Idaho's four members of Congress provided public opposition from within the Republican Party to selling public lands. Even though the public lands amendment was withdrawn, Pickering said the issue isn't going away. She said Conservation Voters for Idaho plans to highlight public lands as a central issue and continue to hold elected officials accountable for keeping public lands public. Pickering also said the public is deeply invested in the issue and knows Lee could file another proposal to sell public lands. She compared the proposal to sell public lands to waking a sleeping bear. 'Now that they have woken the bear, it will be really hard to get that bear back in hibernation mode,' Pickering said. Three of Idaho's four members of Congress, U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, all R-Idaho, provided public Republican opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, the Sun previously reported. On June 20, Risch and Crapo, both announced they were opposed to the provision in the budget reconciliation process to sell off public lands. Simpson co-sponsored the Public Lands in Public Hands Act. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, opposed the Public Lands in Public Hands Act, the Utah News Dispatch reported. In a phone interview with the Idaho Capital Sun earlier this month, Fulcher said, 'public land should remain public, but the control, management should be local stakeholders, not the federal government.' Polling data shows that Risch received a 10% bump in support among all registered voters after they learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, up from 41% to 51%. Among registered Republican voters only, Risch's support increased from 60% to 72% after voters learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands. The poll only asked voters about Risch's upcoming U.S. Senate race, where he faces re-election in 2026. The poll did not ask about Crapo, Simpson or Fulcher, Pickering said. Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@ Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amusement park ride stops in mid-air leaving thrill seekers dangling in terror
Shocking footage captures an amusement park ride stopped in mid-air, leaving riders dangling high above the ground. The Sol Spin ride at Knott's Berry Farm in Buena Park, California, suddenly malfunctioned Saturday afternoon as it was rotating 360 degrees. Video from the Citizen App showed about 20 riders stuck in mid-air, with many screaming, some swinging their legs, and others leaning sideways on one of the ride's six arms. "The safety of our guests is a top priority. Today the ride did not complete a full cycle as a safety precaution. The ride was stopped for approximately five minutes,' Knott's Berry Farm said in a statement to ABC7. The ride then reopened after 'a full safety inspection,' the statement continued. The Independent has reached out to the amusement park for more information. 'This thrilling ride is one for the brave,' Knott's Farm says of Sol Spin. It rotates riders in three directions simultaneously, according to the park's website. 'Sol Spin sends guests on a thrilling adventure over six stories high as they rotate in all directions on one of six spinning arms. Each arm rotates 360-degrees independent of one another providing a different experience every ride,' the website states. Social media users replied to videos of the harrowing incident, calling it a 'nightmare.' One X user remarked: 'Oh. Hell. No. One of my worst fears unlocked.' 'What a nightmare!' another said. Another recalled a similar incident last year, put it succinctly: 'Again.' Last November, the same ride left 22 people suspended in the air for two hours due to 'technical difficulties,' a spokesperson for the amusement park said at the time. Some riders left the thrill ride in wheelchairs while two female guests were taken to the hospital for further evaluation "out of an abundance of caution,' the spokesperson said in November. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health then inspected the ride, KTLA reported.
