GOP Leader resigns over "Lazy Blacks" remark

[ChesusRice]

It was the Democrats who opposed the civil rights act of 1964. No, cheesdick does not know this. Martin Luther King was a Republican; cheesedick does not know that either.

Civil rights act of 1964:
By party[edit]

The original House version:[SUP][17][/SUP]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[SUP][18][/SUP]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[SUP][17][/SUP]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[SUP][17][/SUP]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:

80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.
Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.
Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

 

[tokeprep]

You're too easy, cheesy.

The source for the quote is a journalist's book, so the veracity is dubious, but having listened to some of Johnson's tapes, it wouldn't surprise me if he did actually say that.

 

[tokeprep]

When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:

80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.
Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.
Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

Your assertion was that Democrats were responsible for that legislation, Chesus. False. Democrats tried to bury the legislation; the Republicans were responsible for forcing it through and up to the president.

Your copy and paste expressly notes this. Did you even bother to read it?

 

[UncleBuck]

Yeah, now talk about the house and the senate, Chesus, where the Democrats were filibustering both bills to prevent Johnson from ever signing them.

Democrats or Republicans?

neither.

civil rights was decided on geographic lines, not party lines.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

guess what party the southerners who voted no all now belong to?

that's right, don yelton's party.

do any of you lazy blacks ever bother to look these things up?

 

[tokeprep]

neither.

civil rights was decided on geographic lines, not party lines.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

You say "neither" when the accurate answer to my question is "Democrats." We're talking cloture and you know it.

guess what party the southerners who voted no all now belong to?

that's right, don yelton's party.

do any of you lazy blacks ever bother to look these things up?

No, here "neither" would actually be appropriate. What party do the southerners who voted no now belong to? Neither. They're all dead.

 

[UncleBuck]

You say "neither" when the accurate answer to my question is "Democrats." We're talking cloture and you know it.

civil rights was decided on geographic lines, kiddo.

the south generally opposed civil rights, regardless of party.

the north generally supported civil rights, regardless of party.

it's yet another example of how the south has always been a blight on our otherwise great nation.

don yelton proves how that holds just as true today as it did 50 years ago (and well before that too).

No, here "neither" would actually be appropriate. What party do the southerners who voted no now belong to? Neither. They're all dead.

but their kids are now republicans and tea partiers, hence why the south is solid red.

 

[ChesusRice]

Is it time for the southern revisionists to claim the civil war wasn't about slavery?

 

[NLXSK1]

Don Yelton, a GOP precinct chair in Buncombe County, North Carolina, is resigning following comments about voter ID laws and “lazy blacks” on “The Daily Show”–but the media frenzy about the remarks is continuing.
In an interview this week with “The Daily Show” correspondent Aasif Mandvi, Yelton said that new voting restrictions imposed in North Carolina in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act were going to hurt democrats. “The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt,” he said. He added that “if it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.” He also suggested that it was okay if the law hurts whites and “lazy” college students.
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/10/26/gops-don-yelton-resigns-after-lazy-blacks-remark-on-daily-show/

You guys are so freaking biased. Reading the headline you would think Boehner was resigning. If this happened in the Democrat party the politician likely would have gotten a senate seat... Hypocrisy rules!!

 

[tokeprep]

civil rights was decided on geographic lines, kiddo.

the south generally opposed civil rights, regardless of party.

the north generally supported civil rights, regardless of party.

it's yet another example of how the south has always been a blight on our otherwise great nation.

That was never the question. The question was who got the bills into law, and the answer is Democrats and Republicans. No one's talking about geography but you--the question was about party.

don yelton proves how that holds just as true today as it did 50 years ago (and well before that too).

Yeah, let's get our second logical fallacy in for the day.

but their kids are now republicans and tea partiers, hence why the south is solid red.

Yeah, because people in the south to this day vote solely on the basis of race and for no other reason. They have no ideology whatsoever except for their vicious racist ideology; everything else is just a shallow cover for the racism.

Like I said, you are now the premier bigot in this forum because of your blatant hypocrisy. Congratulations.

 

[UncleBuck]

Is it time for the southern revisionists to claim the civil war wasn't about slavery?

the south has always just tried to be nice and polite and conserve their way of life, that's all.

they wanted to keep the blacks as slaves and then they wanted to keep the blacks from enjoying civil rights and to this day they still lead the nation in racism per capita, as well as venereal diseases and poor education.

but they are totally not a blight on our otherwise great nation or anything, folks.

by the way, black people stole tokeprep's spot at ITT tech, poor guy had to settle for devryU.

 

[Rob Roy]

Is it time for the southern revisionists to claim the civil war wasn't about slavery?

If people that want to disassociate are not permitted to disassociate are they enslaved? A perpetual union based on the application of force to uphold it? Hmm, looks there's a contradiction in there somewhere.

 

[UncleBuck]

No one's talking about geography

i am.

the south opposed civil rights.

the north passe civil rights, despite your venereal disease ridden objections, kiddo.

you guys are a blight on our nation.

Yeah, let's get our second logical fallacy in for the day.

the south is firmly and solidly red, or as i like to call it, in the grip of don yelton's party.

Yeah, because people in the south to this day vote solely on the basis of race and for no other reason. They have no ideology whatsoever except for their vicious racist ideology; everything else is just a shallow cover for the racism.

the entire country, even fucking utah, found obama to be a more convincing candidate than kerry (not a tough feat).

but somehow, the least educated swath of white people in the nation somehow mysteriously saw through it.

i bet their votes were not at all influenced by obama's skin color, i bet they just totally loved mccain's lax immigration policy, right kiddo?

you have some fucking learning and growing up to do, kiddo.

 

[desert dude]

i am.

the south opposed civil rights.

the north passe civil rights, despite your venereal disease ridden objections, kiddo.

you guys are a blight on our nation.





the south is firmly and solidly red, or as i like to call it, in the grip of don yelton's party.





the entire country, even fucking utah, found obama to be a more convincing candidate than kerry (not a tough feat).

but somehow, the least educated swath of white people in the nation somehow mysteriously saw through it.

i bet their votes were not at all influenced by obama's skin color, i bet they just totally loved mccain's lax immigration policy, right kiddo?

you have some fucking learning and growing up to do, kiddo.

Send everybody south of 34 degrees N latitude to the reeducation camps!

 

[UncleBuck]

Send everybody south of 34 degrees N latitude to the reeducation camps!

i'd rather just give them better access to health care so they can hopefully reduce their rampant venereal diseases.

 

[Beefbisquit]

i am.

the south opposed civil rights.

the north passe civil rights, despite your venereal disease ridden objections, kiddo.

you guys are a blight on our nation.





the south is firmly and solidly red, or as i like to call it, in the grip of don yelton's party.





the entire country, even fucking utah, found obama to be a more convincing candidate than kerry (not a tough feat).

but somehow, the least educated swath of white people in the nation somehow mysteriously saw through it.

i bet their votes were not at all influenced by obama's skin color, i bet they just totally loved mccain's lax immigration policy, right kiddo?

you have some fucking learning and growing up to do, kiddo.

Looks like there's a strong correlation between southern states, and voting for white people.

 

[UncleBuck]

Looks like there's a strong correlation between southern states, and voting for white people.

why would such large swaths of the south come out in such strong numbers for a RINO with a lax immigration policy, especially when the entire rest of the nation did the opposite?

they were probably all just dying for some amnesty for those illegals.

 

[tokeprep]

i am.

the south opposed civil rights.

I understand that you answered your own question and then tried to attach it to this discussion. That doesn't change the fact that no one else was answering your question, but since no one asked it that should hardly be surprising.

the north passe civil rights, despite your venereal disease ridden objections, kiddo.

you guys are a blight on our nation.

And you're a hate-spewing bigot.

the south is firmly and solidly red, or as i like to call it, in the grip of don yelton's party.



the entire country, even fucking utah, found obama to be a more convincing candidate than kerry (not a tough feat).

but somehow, the least educated swath of white people in the nation somehow mysteriously saw through it

i bet their votes were not at all influenced by obama's skin color, i bet they just totally loved mccain's lax immigration policy, right kiddo?

Your map doesn't even show a south that's "firmly and solidly red." Apparently you really are colorblind.

I already provided you with a link to a statistical analysis on your map and the claim you made. If you forgot, it was the first result for the Google search terms you suggested. But since you didn't bother replying to that post I guess there's no point in providing you with the link again. I realize you don't care; evidence is meaningless when you've got emotion and bigotry, right?

you have some fucking learning and growing up to do, kiddo.

Yeah, kiddo, you really do. You're way too old to be acting this way.

 

[tokeprep]

Looks like there's a strong correlation between southern states, and voting for white people.

Evidently Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia aren't southern states...

 

[UncleBuck]

was there supposed to be a rebuttal in there, kiddo?

why did the south go so hard for mccain when the rest of the nation went more obama?

was mccain's message of lax immigration policy that appealing to southerners in the whitest swaths of the south?

 

[tokeprep]

was there supposed to be a rebuttal in there, kiddo?

why did the south go so hard for mccain when the rest of the nation went more obama?

was mccain's message of lax immigration policy that appealing to southerners in the whitest swaths of the south?

You still haven't looked at or mentioned the statistical study that evaluated the claim you're making and found it to be dubious.

Also, see the post above: "Evidently Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia aren't southern states..."