Noelle Nikpour

[Wilber]

Anyone catch Samantha Bee's talk with Noelle Nikpour on the Daily Show last night? Does Nikpour have a great future as a deadpan comic or does she actually believe what she is saying? I can't figure it out.

[naomiglover]

Anyone catch Samantha Bee's talk with Noelle Nikpour on the Daily Show last night? Does Nikpour have a great future as a deadpan comic or does she actually believe what she is saying? I can't figure it out.

She's a regular on Foxnews. Good chance she believes what she is saying.

[Wilber]

She's a regular on Foxnews. Good chance she believes what she is saying.

Yikes!

[BubberMiley]

Those interviews seem fishy to me. I can't see how anyone with any awareness whatsoever would appear in an "interview" with Samantha Bee and expect to be taken seriously. If she wasn't in on the joke, how could anybody pay any attention to what she says? She would have to be a complete imbecile.

Oh right, she's on FoxNews.

Never mind.

[richardstack]

I have poked about, Google-fashion, the topic "Noelle Nikpour", in the light of the astonishing Daily Show "interview". Here are the questions I would like answered by some industrious journalist. This ostentatiously imbecilic figure is apparently an EMPLOYEE of Fox News. Who HIRED her ? Why has the person who hired her not been fired ? What does this (inapropriately labeled) "news" company think it is doing roping in such an astonishingly ignorant person ? On the web, for which she is, admittedly, NOT responsible, she is shown as a sexy thing (lots of moderately exciting photos, no doubt). She is also described as a "Republican Consultant", whatever that may mean. Is it, even in the farthest reaches of one's imagination (admittedly a place which has been stretched to unforeseen limits recently), possible to imagine anyone sufficiently idiotic to actually "consult" such a person ? It is, of course, not hard at all to imagine anyone exploiting such a person. But "consultation"? My (no doubt naive) notion of "consultation" involves seeking expert advice. What on earth would one "consult" Noelle Nikpour about? Would one pay her ? And if someone had done so, would one pay the person who had decided to do so ? What would one's shareholders say about such an egregious waste of funds? What does the owner of the London Times and the Wall Street Journal think about her astonishing antics ?

On the other hand, the Daily Show has found a splendid little skit, a real classic for their genre. It is so perfect that one is almost inclined to imagine that it is a setup. But no !

[kimmy]

I too had no idea who Noelle Nikpour is, and had to Google for her. The first thing that greeted me was a picture of her dressed in a tube top and booty-shorts which she was peeling down.

I'd think that one good rule of thumb for women who aspire to be taken seriously in fields of politics and business would be: keep your clothes on.

However...

I have no idea what the contents of this segment were. Can anyone illuminate the subject? I know that Comedy Central is rather protective of their content, so it might be difficult to find online.

I haven't watched The Daily Show regularly for a long time (darned day job...) but Samantha Bee always made me laugh.

edit: here it is.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/best-of/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart--holiday-edition/clip247508#clip247508

Funny. Samantha Bee is priceless. "Woman, go take your pills!"

-k

Edited December 19, 2009 by kimmy

[richardstack]

I too had no idea who Noelle Nikpour is, and had to Google for her. The first thing that greeted me was a picture of her dressed in a tube top and booty-shorts which she was peeling down.

I'd think that one good rule of thumb for women who aspire to be taken seriously in fields of politics and business would be: keep your clothes on.

However...

I have no idea what the contents of this segment were. Can anyone illuminate the subject? I know that Comedy Central is rather protective of their content, so it might be difficult to find online.

I haven't watched The Daily Show regularly for a long time (darned day job...) but Samantha Bee always made me laugh.

edit: here it is.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/best-of/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart--holiday-edition/clip247508#clip247508

Funny. Samantha Bee is priceless. "Woman, go take your pills!"

-k

[richardstack]

I too had no idea who Noelle Nikpour is, and had to Google for her. The first thing that greeted me was a picture of her dressed in a tube top and booty-shorts which she was peeling down.

I'd think that one good rule of thumb for women who aspire to be taken seriously in fields of politics and business would be: keep your clothes on.

However...

I have no idea what the contents of this segment were. Can anyone illuminate the subject? I know that Comedy Central is rather protective of their content, so it might be difficult to find online.

I haven't watched The Daily Show regularly for a long time (darned day job...) but Samantha Bee always made me laugh.

edit: here it is.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/best-of/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart--holiday-edition/clip247508#clip247508

Funny. Samantha Bee is priceless. "Woman, go take your pills!"

-k

[richardstack]

It occurs to me that News Corp may be a surreptitious shareholder in Comedy Central, lining up likely folks for good comedy spots.

[Wilber]

"Woman, go take your pills!"

That bit was priceless.

[Guest American Woman]

She is also described as a "Republican Consultant", whatever that may mean. Is it, even in the farthest reaches of one's imagination (admittedly a place which has been stretched to unforeseen limits recently), possible to imagine anyone sufficiently idiotic to actually "consult" such a person ? It is, of course, not hard at all to imagine anyone exploiting such a person. But "consultation"? My (no doubt naive) notion of "consultation" involves seeking expert advice. What on earth would one "consult" Noelle Nikpour about? Would one pay her ?

Evidently Rudy Giuliani did.

....Noelle Michelle Nikpour, 43, definitely is a political consultant of long standing.

In the late 1990s, she was a partner in a Republican fundraising company called Capitol Resource Management Group, which was rolled into Impact Management Group of Little Rock, where Nikpour was a partner until about four years ago.

Most recently she has done business under the name Ricercia & Associates.

And just last year, she was paid almost $75,000 by the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee Inc., according to quarterly reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

She admires Sarah Palin, so maybe she'll be getting more work.

On the other hand, the Daily Show has found a splendid little skit, a real classic for their genre. It is so perfect that one is almost inclined to imagine that it is a setup. But no !

I'm not so sure that Nikpour didn't know "Samantha Bee" was being sarcastic. I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to go on a show and not familiarize them self with it first; if she wasn't familiar with the Jon Stewart Show beforehand, that is, which is also find difficult to believe. But maybe she is that stupid; who knows?

[bloodyminded]

Evidently Rudy Giuliani did.

....Noelle Michelle Nikpour, 43, definitely is a political consultant of long standing.

In the late 1990s, she was a partner in a Republican fundraising company called Capitol Resource Management Group, which was rolled into Impact Management Group of Little Rock, where Nikpour was a partner until about four years ago.

Most recently she has done business under the name Ricercia & Associates.

And just last year, she was paid almost $75,000 by the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee Inc., according to quarterly reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

She admires Sarah Palin, so maybe she'll be getting more work.

I'm not so sure that Nikpour didn't know "Samantha Bee" was being sarcastic. I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to go on a show and not familiarize them self with it first; if she wasn't familiar with the Jon Stewart Show beforehand, that is, which is also find difficult to believe. But maybe she is that stupid; who knows?

Unless Nikpour was satirizing herself to make the hysterical anit-Obamanites look ridiculous (and that's difficult to believe), she was definitely serious and certainly fooled.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Either way, I could careless. This is the first instance I have ever heard of her, and probably the last. In any event, this thread wins "insignificant American politics topic of the year."

[Michael Hardner]

Either way, I could careless.

Two things:

The expression, as you have used it, makes no sense on two levels:

Firstly "I could careless" lacks a verb. You're trying to say "I could care less.".

On the second level, the expression is "I couldn't care less.". If you say "I could care less" then you're saying you care at a higher level than you could care, i.e. you have a heightened level of caring.

[kimmy]

Unless Nikpour was satirizing herself to make the hysterical anit-Obamanites look ridiculous (and that's difficult to believe), she was definitely serious and certainly fooled.

I think it's entirely possible that she was playing along.

Or maybe not.

-k

[Pliny]

This thread is a great demonstration of the Canadian political viewpoint.

Obama would like the American government to appear more friendly, like in Canada and Europe.

I think you, on this thread, realize Obama is probably the most left-wing President the US has seen since FDR. America went to war with FDR under the banner of liberty, freedom and democracy. It was when socialism and the centralization of the State was at the height of experimentation. The USSR and Hitler, Mao - the State was supreme.

I don't view the message from the White House as anything but an aggrandizement of the State with the intent of endearing it's future citizen's to it, something American's have been warned about since it's inception.

Like Canadians, Americans are gradually warming up to government and asking it for more and more. It will wind up the same as here, bickering about who has priority at the public trough and the pecking order ultimately decided by our politicians and the special interests instead of the people.

I know that Democrats and the left find government to be their friend and like to build it up, centralize it, make it more important in everyone's life and then when it can no longer be contained, is too big to fail, complain it is being taken over by dictators.

John Stewart may satirize the political right but making government big and endearing it to the people is the road to serfdom and why would you want those right wing bastards to have the opportunity to seize that kind of centralized power that you so desire for your own ideological perspective?

Noelle Nikpour may provide a convenient target but the real subject of the issue is missed. I can understand why most Canadians, and for that matter most of the first world, would miss the American concept she holds. We love our government and understand it's increasing importance in our lives and in it's decisions how to run them. - Now that's some satire!

[bloodyminded]

I know that Democrats and the left find government to be their friend and like to build it up, centralize it, make it more important in everyone's life and then when it can no longer be contained, is too big to fail, complain it is being taken over by dictators.

I'm not positive you're totally wrong about the left (or I should say "the left" since they are varied, and different leftists are in quite profound conflict with one another), but I can't for the life of me understand why you claim that the Right has no fondness for Big Government. They decidedly do.

They AY they don't. But anyone can SAY anything. Whenh they say they don't like big Government, they are jaw-droppingly ignorant about their OWN beliefs.

The right, more than the left, supports torture and rendition. That's big government...bigger than tax-and-spenders, in fact. Or if we wish to make distictions between foreign and domestic matters (though torture and rendition apply domestically too, as the case of Mahir Arar demonstrates all the way to the bone)...then what about the death penalty? While not solely a right-wing affectation of "justice," the right IS more supportive of it generally. And you don't get any bigger government than one who can kill its citizens.

Ok, I can anticipate the "guilty vs. innocence" response--one I consider highly problematic, but let's alow it and give another example:

Warrantless spying of innocent citizens. It's true that Obama supporters have remained sedulously silent on the matter, not wishing to critique the Great Man; but it was a right-wing initiative, and it retains overwhelming right-wing support, which differentiates them from most of the Left on this matter. Warrantless spying and eavesdropping is very big government indeed...in fact, because of the wilful aid of communications companies to spy on us for the government even as we pay them to do so, this is a type of corporatism that verges closely to the fascistic. ("Fascism" is overused, but in this case it comes very close to accurate).

Those are right off the top of my head...no doubt I could think of others.

The right wing likes Big Government too. Loves it, even, so long as that government isn't of the wrong Party.

[Pliny]

I'm not positive you're totally wrong about the left (or I should say "the left" since they are varied, and different leftists are in quite profound conflict with one another), but I can't for the life of me understand why you claim that the Right has no fondness for Big Government. They decidedly do.

If I said that the right doesn't like big government then I was totally wrong. the right likes big government as much as the left, especially at the extremes. Most extreme leftists find themselves on the extreme right when they get in power, the reason being, the struggle for control. Power has been centralized in the socialist state and the ideologues grapple for the helm. It's the reason national socialists don't like communists. They are both Statist ideologies and will fight for their brand of socialism against other brands. A centralized government is not a stable government.

As you say, leftists are in profound conflict with one another.

They AY they don't. But anyone can SAY anything. Whenh they say they don't like big Government, they are jaw-droppingly ignorant about their OWN beliefs.

Well, I am for limited government. Although I hold what are considered conservative values, I do not wish them to be ensconced in law. That is perhaps what the conservatism you are thinking of is about - engineering how people should behave as individuals. The left isn't particularly concerned with how people behave as individuals but think we should all act collectively for the common good. Thinking in terms of the "common good" is often hard to measure and makes it easy for politicians to justify their policies and programs which may hurt some individuals, usually the more active who act as individuals instead of sheep, while making themselves appear to be "concerned" with the less fortunate, "leveling the playing field" so to speak, bringing about equality.

The right, more than the left, supports torture and rendition. That's big government...bigger than tax-and-spenders, in fact. Or if we wish to make distictions between foreign and domestic matters (though torture and rendition apply domestically too, as the case of Mahir Arar demonstrates all the way to the bone)...then what about the death penalty? While not solely a right-wing affectation of "justice," the right IS more supportive of it generally. And you don't get any bigger government than one who can kill its citizens.

well, I would like to defer comment on this subject and the one below until I talk about the overuse of the word "Fascism"

Ok, I can anticipate the "guilty vs. innocence" response--one I consider highly problematic, but let's alow it and give another example:

Warrantless spying of innocent citizens. It's true that Obama supporters have remained sedulously silent on the matter, not wishing to critique the Great Man; but it was a right-wing initiative, and it retains overwhelming right-wing support, which differentiates them from most of the Left on this matter. Warrantless spying and eavesdropping is very big government indeed...in fact, because of the wilful aid of communications companies to spy on us for the government even as we pay them to do so, this is a type of corporatism that verges closely to the fascistic. ("Fascism" is overused, but in this case it comes very close to accurate).

Here we are. The two above examples you use are of powers of the State. They could belong to a big government or not. If justice were the only mandate of government and the power of capital punishment were given to it then, although the government is limited in it's mandate and thus small it still holds that power.

Expand the mandate of the government and add up the powers of the government and you have a more socialized state, because it has more powers in more areas.

Fascism is an end. It is an ideal. It is where socialism ends up. And socialism is a progressive process not an ideal or end.

Fascism is a wrongly used term. Using it to describe the socialist tendencies of government because it is a policy that is disagreed with is not a correct use of the term. If it is remembered that government is about the monopolistic use and delegation of force in the form of legislation then it will undoubtedly have some powers. If it runs a society entirely, controls the economy, I would say it is perhaps a Fascist state or maybe a communist state depending upon the ideology but both are totalitarian States.

Those are right off the top of my head...no doubt I could think of others.

The right wing likes Big Government too. Loves it, even, so long as that government isn't of the wrong Party.

I don't disagree. Government is about force as it increases it's intervention in society it increases it's use of force, that's progressive socialism, the process at work. The right and the left both wish to use that force for their own reasons. If you want peace and harmony limit the mandate and thus the powers of government. Force is sometimes necessary but it must be balanced with reason. Keep power from being concentrated and thus "available" to either the left or right extremist ideologies. Democracy is supposed to that but people keep voting themselves favours, the left and the right, and fulfilling the prophecy of progressive socialism, bigger government and finally ending in the totalitarian State.

The fight in a progressive socialist State eventually becomes fighting over keeping the privileges and favours that each side or political party has won for it's citizens.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

If I said that the right doesn't like big government then I was totally wrong. the right likes big government as much as the left, especially at the extremes. Most extreme leftists find themselves on the extreme right when they get in power, the reason being, the struggle for control. Power has been centralized in the socialist state and the ideologues grapple for the helm. It's the reason national socialists don't like communists. They are both Statist ideologies and will fight for their brand of socialism against other brands. A centralized government is not a stable government.

As you say, leftists are in profound conflict with one another.

While you write in a civilized way, you offer nothing but profound--even total--disrespect to anyone who doesn't see the world exactly as you do.

When I said that leftists were in profound conflcit with one another, I was speaking to a broad, messy sense of individuals offering different opinions and with varied nuances of belief.

But to you, we're all communists or Nazis.

That's fine. It's masturbation, but it's your business. However, don't apply such simplified beliefs to me, as if they're mine, by using "as you say..."

If you please.

[Shady]

bloodyminded,

Your signature isn't a Ronald Reagan quote. It's article II of the UN Convention Against Torture. Please correct the mistake. Thanks.

[bloodyminded]

bloodyminded,

Your signature isn't a Ronald Reagan quote. It's article II of the UN Convention Against Torture. Please correct the mistake. Thanks.

You're correct, and I"ll make the changes next time I'm here.

However, though I don't think you care for this, the truth is that Reagan not only signed it--he championed it. Further, his remarks went slightly beyond the Charter:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

So as you see, Reagan also explicitly opposed "other inhuman treatment" which might not officially be called "torture" by our moral relativists today who get moist thinking about brave troops beating on detainees.

Also--as you can see above--Reagan called for strict prosecutions of such behavior.

Interesting, no?

Churchill was a big hater of such practices too.

so every time a torture-supporter invokes Reagan or Churchill (and torture supporters are the types of who do so regularly and reflexively, being worshippers of the "Great Man" theory, like all sycophants) you'll agree that they are...not too knowledgeable.

Edited December 29, 2009 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

You're correct, and I"ll make the changes next time I'm here.

....and the beat (down) goes on.

[bloodyminded]

....and the beat (down) goes on.

This from a little boy who never admits his errors.

I always do. I'm the man.

[bush_cheney2004]

This from a little boy who never admits his errors.

I always do. I'm the man.

You mangled a quote on purpose.....Shady called you on it....how brave!

[BubberMiley]

This from a little boy who never admits his errors.

I always do. I'm the man.

Touche!