Skip to main content

Douche of the Day: Pastor Darrell Scott

While I normally can't stand cable news networks, I'm hooked during election season. This morning, unfortunately, that resulted in me seeing a painful interview on MSNBC's Live with Tamron Hall between host Tamron Hall and pastor and Donald Trump supporter, Darrell Scott. Here are a few of the highlights (or lowlights depending on how you look at it):

- "Inciting (violence)? No, because you don't see Donald Trump supporters fighting each other."

- Denied 78-year-old Trump supporter (John McGraw), who sucker-punched an African-American protester as he was walking out of a Trump rally, (before later un-denying it), was actually a Trump supporter, adding, "If he had punched a white man, we wouldn't have had the controversy."

- Compared the Trump rally (a white man punching a black man) to a Katt Williams show where a black man stomped on another black man

- "If I hear that, I don't throw a tomato. Why would you throw a tomato anyway?" (in response to Trump's quote about, "If you see someone throw a tomato, just knock the crap out of them.")

- "Why won't Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tell their supporters not to disrupt these Trump rallies?" (paraphrase)

- Hall: "How are the protesters inciting violence?"

  Scott: "People are holding up Bernie Sanders signs."

- Hall: "What about your Constitutional right to protest?"

  Scott: "What about your Constitutional right to free assembly and free speech?"

- "There's an undercurrent of African-Americans that are going to vote for Trump. They're just not gonna tell anybody."

The entire interview can be viewed at this link:

http://www.msnbc.com/tamron-hall/watch/pastor-scott-defends-trump-after-rally-violence-644888131789

Like I said, painful, wasn't it? The saying goes, "He might have a few screws loose." Darrell Scott makes it sound as though his brain is composed of nothing but loose screws. His proof of Donald Trump not inciting violence at his rallies is that his supporters aren't going at one another during the events? Seriously? Right, because Klansmen are known for beating one another up at KKK rallies and Nazis are known for going at one another at Nazi rallies... Also, while it's quite possible the sucker-punch story may not have garnered quite as much media attention if both the perpetrator and victim were white. However, Pastor Scott is quite naive to think it wouldn't generate any media attention. Leaving race to the side, a Donald Trump supporter sucker-punched a non-aggressive protester. Yes, that's a story. The Donald Trump-Katt Williams comparison is ridiculous as well. One man is a comedian and the other man is running for the highest office in the land. That's not even an apples-to-oranges comparison. That's more along the lines of an apple-to-skyscraper comparison. Scott was accurate in saying Trump has the right to freely speak in this country, yet protesters do as well, and it's ridiculous to suggest that Bernie Sanders signs are inciting violence. Lastly, okay, fine, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders can tell their supporters to not be disruptive at Donald Trump rallies, but that's not guaranteed to work, and the question remains, "Why are such protests and violent incidents present at Donald Trump rallies, but at no other candidate's rallies?" It's because of Donald Trump's angry, racially-charged rhetoric and policy ideas. The man has openly supported: Banning Muslims, deporting immigrants, building a wall along the Mexican border, torture, committing war crimes, physically harming detractors at his rallies, etc. If that's not inciting violence, I don't know what is... Oh, that's, as Pastor Darrell Scott would say, "Holding up Bernie Sanders signs." Congratulations, Mr. Scott! You get my Douche of the Day Award! Please take good care of it! I'm sure you will!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"