Comments on: Speaker Carroll targets initiative petition process for reform http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform News you can't get anywhere else Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:54:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: real christmas trees http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform/comment-page-1#comment-517264 real christmas trees Sun, 30 Oct 2011 01:32:59 +0000 http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=24928#comment-517264 <strong>Christmas Tree...</strong> This is really interesting, You're an overly professional blogger. I have joined your feed and sit up for searching for more of your excellent post. Additionally, I've shared your web site in my social networks! Christmas Tree... Christmas Tree…

This is really interesting, You’re an overly professional blogger. I have joined your feed and sit up for searching for more of your excellent post. Additionally, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks! Christmas Tree…

]]> By: Weird Load » Election Fraud within the GOP Wisconsin Recall Efforts? http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform/comment-page-1#comment-68483 Weird Load » Election Fraud within the GOP Wisconsin Recall Efforts? Fri, 06 May 2011 15:23:22 +0000 http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=24928#comment-68483 [...] Kennedy Enterprises.  This is the same company that ran into trouble for irregularities in Colorado and Indiana. (The Gary Bauer campaign)  With Kennedy Enterprises' history of fraud [...] [...] Kennedy Enterprises.  This is the same company that ran into trouble for irregularities in Colorado and Indiana. (The Gary Bauer campaign)  With Kennedy Enterprises' history of fraud [...]

]]> By: GOP Election Fraud Exposed | Recall Scott Walker NOW! http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform/comment-page-1#comment-68482 GOP Election Fraud Exposed | Recall Scott Walker NOW! Fri, 06 May 2011 15:09:06 +0000 http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=24928#comment-68482 [...] The challenge of GOP recall petitions features scores of claims from Wisconsin citizens who were victimized by the wholesale election fraud of the disreputable out-of-state firm hired by Wisconsin Republicans to collect signatures.  Kennedy Enterprises received nearly $100,000 from the Republican Party of Wisconsin to circulate recall petitions.  Kennedy owns a tarnished reputation based on past offenses in Colorado. [...] [...] The challenge of GOP recall petitions features scores of claims from Wisconsin citizens who were victimized by the wholesale election fraud of the disreputable out-of-state firm hired by Wisconsin Republicans to collect signatures.  Kennedy Enterprises received nearly $100,000 from the Republican Party of Wisconsin to circulate recall petitions.  Kennedy owns a tarnished reputation based on past offenses in Colorado. [...]

]]> By: Freedom09 http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform/comment-page-1#comment-34358 Freedom09 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:45:56 +0000 http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=24928#comment-34358 The process of Direct Democracy balances our election process and its resulting legislative rulings. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees this balancing as "the right to redress grievence toward government."<br> Balancing allows for slippage in all facets of Life. If, say government were to be held to the same standards as are proposed toward the petitioning process in Colorado, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of legislative recall; IF it were to be permitted...<br> Therein is the reason for the petition process. The Founders understood the potential for legislative abuse, self-serving governance and the possible resulting anarchy by the people (with guns) who via violence could take back "their Government" in the same way the Revolutionary War revoked British rule.<br> Balancing counters extremes. So egregious far exceeds normal slippage. So is it a balancing act or an egregious act that prompt these proposals?<br> It's vital to understand the obvious! <br> Swatting a fly accomplishes the same end as attaching C4 to it. The proposals themselves are overkill. Maybe our Legislature considers the Peoples' oversight an elephant where orchestrated demolition rids them of this nuisance?<br> Referendum 0 would have passed had not the author slipped the last part in about a majority legislative vote dismissing a voter approved statute after 5 years. Again overkill. And that was in its essence, a decent balancing measure.<br> Wanna consider real overkill? Consider transforming elections into selections like jury trials. Removing the personal gain angle into 100% civic duty would allow petitioning to revert to volunteers once again. That would level the playing field, would it not?<br> In the meantime, let us remind our legislators that our only 2 Petition Companies in Colorado, Lamm Consulting and Kennedy Enterprises were not involved at all with Protect Colorado's Future who are rumored to be linked with a larger union backed concern, dedicated to minimizing the oversight of Direct Democracy in the 26 states where this crucial process is "permitted". It was common circulator knowledge that the Protect Colorado Future initiatives were present strictly to offset the "Right to Work" initiative which did not pass. This was subsequent to the failed "blocking" efforts of PCF to disqualify Right to Work.<br> Slippage? Yes. So do we counter with weekly polygraphs at the State Capitol or in house investigators looking into the lives and hidden rationale behind every vote of all our elected officials?<br> When the Legislature becomes actually regulated versus the current superficial constraints for public appearance appeasement, then perhaps there could be argument about egregious petitioning constraints. Until that day let us all remember 2 facts about the inititiative process that may have been minimized in the Legislature's "representative" protection of a few crybabies:<br> At the top of each petition page the potential signer is reminded to READ the text. And remember as well, only ONE registered voter at the address of that voter, is COUNTED for that one signer!!! <br> As a footnote Pelosi attempted the same tactic thru the California Legislature. It passed thru both Houses but upon arrival at the Govenor's desk it was TERMINATED. So when it comes to constituents, Republican, Democrat or other, balancing suggests not sawing off the branch upon which you sit!! The process of Direct Democracy balances our election process and its resulting legislative rulings. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees this balancing as “the right to redress grievence toward government.”
Balancing allows for slippage in all facets of Life. If, say government were to be held to the same standards as are proposed toward the petitioning process in Colorado, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of legislative recall; IF it were to be permitted…
Therein is the reason for the petition process. The Founders understood the potential for legislative abuse, self-serving governance and the possible resulting anarchy by the people (with guns) who via violence could take back “their Government” in the same way the Revolutionary War revoked British rule.
Balancing counters extremes. So egregious far exceeds normal slippage. So is it a balancing act or an egregious act that prompt these proposals?
It's vital to understand the obvious!
Swatting a fly accomplishes the same end as attaching C4 to it. The proposals themselves are overkill. Maybe our Legislature considers the Peoples' oversight an elephant where orchestrated demolition rids them of this nuisance?
Referendum 0 would have passed had not the author slipped the last part in about a majority legislative vote dismissing a voter approved statute after 5 years. Again overkill. And that was in its essence, a decent balancing measure.
Wanna consider real overkill? Consider transforming elections into selections like jury trials. Removing the personal gain angle into 100% civic duty would allow petitioning to revert to volunteers once again. That would level the playing field, would it not?
In the meantime, let us remind our legislators that our only 2 Petition Companies in Colorado, Lamm Consulting and Kennedy Enterprises were not involved at all with Protect Colorado's Future who are rumored to be linked with a larger union backed concern, dedicated to minimizing the oversight of Direct Democracy in the 26 states where this crucial process is “permitted”. It was common circulator knowledge that the Protect Colorado Future initiatives were present strictly to offset the “Right to Work” initiative which did not pass. This was subsequent to the failed “blocking” efforts of PCF to disqualify Right to Work.
Slippage? Yes. So do we counter with weekly polygraphs at the State Capitol or in house investigators looking into the lives and hidden rationale behind every vote of all our elected officials?
When the Legislature becomes actually regulated versus the current superficial constraints for public appearance appeasement, then perhaps there could be argument about egregious petitioning constraints. Until that day let us all remember 2 facts about the inititiative process that may have been minimized in the Legislature's “representative” protection of a few crybabies:
At the top of each petition page the potential signer is reminded to READ the text. And remember as well, only ONE registered voter at the address of that voter, is COUNTED for that one signer!!!
As a footnote Pelosi attempted the same tactic thru the California Legislature. It passed thru both Houses but upon arrival at the Govenor's desk it was TERMINATED. So when it comes to constituents, Republican, Democrat or other, balancing suggests not sawing off the branch upon which you sit!!

]]> By: Freedom09 http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform/comment-page-1#comment-32363 Freedom09 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:45:56 +0000 http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=24928#comment-32363 The process of Direct Democracy balances our election process and its resulting legislative rulings. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees this balancing as "the right to redress grievence toward government."<br> Balancing allows for slippage in all facets of Life. If, say government were to be held to the same standards as are proposed toward the petitioning process in Colorado, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of legislative recall; IF it were to be permitted...<br> Therein is the reason for the petition process. The Founders understood the potential for legislative abuse, self-serving governance and the possible resulting anarchy by the people (with guns) who via violence could take back "their Government" in the same way the Revolutionary War revoked British rule.<br> Balancing counters extremes. So egregious far exceeds normal slippage. So is it a balancing act or an egregious act that prompt these proposals?<br> It's vital to understand the obvious! <br> Swatting a fly accomplishes the same end as attaching C4 to it. The proposals themselves are overkill. Maybe our Legislature considers the Peoples' oversight an elephant where orchestrated demolition rids them of this nuisance?<br> Referendum 0 would have passed had not the author slipped the last part in about a majority legislative vote dismissing a voter approved statute after 5 years. Again overkill. And that was in its essence, a decent balancing measure.<br> Wanna consider real overkill? Consider transforming elections into selections like jury trials. Removing the personal gain angle into 100% civic duty would allow petitioning to revert to volunteers once again. That would level the playing field, would it not?<br> In the meantime, let us remind our legislators that our only 2 Petition Companies in Colorado, Lamm Consulting and Kennedy Enterprises were not involved at all with Protect Colorado's Future who are rumored to be linked with a larger union backed concern, dedicated to minimizing the oversight of Direct Democracy in the 26 states where this crucial process is "permitted". It was common circulator knowledge that the Protect Colorado Future initiatives were present strictly to offset the "Right to Work" initiative which did not pass. This was subsequent to the failed "blocking" efforts of PCF to disqualify Right to Work.<br> Slippage? Yes. So do we counter with weekly polygraphs at the State Capitol or in house investigators looking into the lives and hidden rationale behind every vote of all our elected officials?<br> When the Legislature becomes actually regulated versus the current superficial constraints for public appearance appeasement, then perhaps there could be argument about egregious petitioning constraints. Until that day let us all remember 2 facts about the inititiative process that may have been minimized in the Legislature's "representative" protection of a few crybabies:<br> At the top of each petition page the potential signer is reminded to READ the text. And remember as well, only ONE registered voter at the address of that voter, is COUNTED for that one signer!!! <br> As a footnote Pelosi attempted the same tactic thru the California Legislature. It passed thru both Houses but upon arrival at the Govenor's desk it was TERMINATED. So when it comes to constituents, Republican, Democrat or other, balancing suggests not sawing off the branch upon which you sit!! The process of Direct Democracy balances our election process and its resulting legislative rulings. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees this balancing as “the right to redress grievence toward government.”
Balancing allows for slippage in all facets of Life. If, say government were to be held to the same standards as are proposed toward the petitioning process in Colorado, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of legislative recall; IF it were to be permitted…
Therein is the reason for the petition process. The Founders understood the potential for legislative abuse, self-serving governance and the possible resulting anarchy by the people (with guns) who via violence could take back “their Government” in the same way the Revolutionary War revoked British rule.
Balancing counters extremes. So egregious far exceeds normal slippage. So is it a balancing act or an egregious act that prompt these proposals?
It's vital to understand the obvious!
Swatting a fly accomplishes the same end as attaching C4 to it. The proposals themselves are overkill. Maybe our Legislature considers the Peoples' oversight an elephant where orchestrated demolition rids them of this nuisance?
Referendum 0 would have passed had not the author slipped the last part in about a majority legislative vote dismissing a voter approved statute after 5 years. Again overkill. And that was in its essence, a decent balancing measure.
Wanna consider real overkill? Consider transforming elections into selections like jury trials. Removing the personal gain angle into 100% civic duty would allow petitioning to revert to volunteers once again. That would level the playing field, would it not?
In the meantime, let us remind our legislators that our only 2 Petition Companies in Colorado, Lamm Consulting and Kennedy Enterprises were not involved at all with Protect Colorado's Future who are rumored to be linked with a larger union backed concern, dedicated to minimizing the oversight of Direct Democracy in the 26 states where this crucial process is “permitted”. It was common circulator knowledge that the Protect Colorado Future initiatives were present strictly to offset the “Right to Work” initiative which did not pass. This was subsequent to the failed “blocking” efforts of PCF to disqualify Right to Work.
Slippage? Yes. So do we counter with weekly polygraphs at the State Capitol or in house investigators looking into the lives and hidden rationale behind every vote of all our elected officials?
When the Legislature becomes actually regulated versus the current superficial constraints for public appearance appeasement, then perhaps there could be argument about egregious petitioning constraints. Until that day let us all remember 2 facts about the inititiative process that may have been minimized in the Legislature's “representative” protection of a few crybabies:
At the top of each petition page the potential signer is reminded to READ the text. And remember as well, only ONE registered voter at the address of that voter, is COUNTED for that one signer!!!
As a footnote Pelosi attempted the same tactic thru the California Legislature. It passed thru both Houses but upon arrival at the Govenor's desk it was TERMINATED. So when it comes to constituents, Republican, Democrat or other, balancing suggests not sawing off the branch upon which you sit!!

]]> By: Freedom09 http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform/comment-page-1#comment-24974 Freedom09 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:45:56 +0000 http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=24928#comment-24974 The process of Direct Democracy balances our election process and its resulting legislative rulings. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees this balancing as "the right to redress grievence toward government."<br> Balancing allows for slippage in all facets of Life. If, say government were to be held to the same standards as are proposed toward the petitioning process in Colorado, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of legislative recall; IF it were to be permitted...<br> Therein is the reason for the petition process. The Founders understood the potential for legislative abuse, self-serving governance and the possible resulting anarchy by the people (with guns) who via violence could take back "their Government" in the same way the Revolutionary War revoked British rule.<br> Balancing counters extremes. So egregious far exceeds normal slippage. So is it a balancing act or an egregious act that prompt these proposals?<br> It's vital to understand the obvious! <br> Swatting a fly accomplishes the same end as attaching C4 to it. The proposals themselves are overkill. Maybe our Legislature considers the Peoples' oversight an elephant where orchestrated demolition rids them of this nuisance?<br> Referendum 0 would have passed had not the author slipped the last part in about a majority legislative vote dismissing a voter approved statute after 5 years. Again overkill. And that was in its essence, a decent balancing measure.<br> Wanna consider real overkill? Consider transforming elections into selections like jury trials. Removing the personal gain angle into 100% civic duty would allow petitioning to revert to volunteers once again. That would level the playing field, would it not?<br> In the meantime, let us remind our legislators that our only 2 Petition Companies in Colorado, Lamm Consulting and Kennedy Enterprises were not involved at all with Protect Colorado's Future who are rumored to be linked with a larger union backed concern, dedicated to minimizing the oversight of Direct Democracy in the 26 states where this crucial process is "permitted". It was common circulator knowledge that the Protect Colorado Future initiatives were present strictly to offset the "Right to Work" initiative which did not pass. This was subsequent to the failed "blocking" efforts of PCF to disqualify Right to Work.<br> Slippage? Yes. So do we counter with weekly polygraphs at the State Capitol or in house investigators looking into the lives and hidden rationale behind every vote of all our elected officials?<br> When the Legislature becomes actually regulated versus the current superficial constraints for public appearance appeasement, then perhaps there could be argument about egregious petitioning constraints. Until that day let us all remember 2 facts about the inititiative process that may have been minimized in the Legislature's "representative" protection of a few crybabies:<br> At the top of each petition page the potential signer is reminded to READ the text. And remember as well, only ONE registered voter at the address of that voter, is COUNTED for that one signer!!! <br> As a footnote Pelosi attempted the same tactic thru the California Legislature. It passed thru both Houses but upon arrival at the Govenor's desk it was TERMINATED. So when it comes to constituents, Republican, Democrat or other, balancing suggests not sawing off the branch upon which you sit!! The process of Direct Democracy balances our election process and its resulting legislative rulings. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees this balancing as “the right to redress grievence toward government.”
Balancing allows for slippage in all facets of Life. If, say government were to be held to the same standards as are proposed toward the petitioning process in Colorado, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of legislative recall; IF it were to be permitted…
Therein is the reason for the petition process. The Founders understood the potential for legislative abuse, self-serving governance and the possible resulting anarchy by the people (with guns) who via violence could take back “their Government” in the same way the Revolutionary War revoked British rule.
Balancing counters extremes. So egregious far exceeds normal slippage. So is it a balancing act or an egregious act that prompt these proposals?
It's vital to understand the obvious!
Swatting a fly accomplishes the same end as attaching C4 to it. The proposals themselves are overkill. Maybe our Legislature considers the Peoples' oversight an elephant where orchestrated demolition rids them of this nuisance?
Referendum 0 would have passed had not the author slipped the last part in about a majority legislative vote dismissing a voter approved statute after 5 years. Again overkill. And that was in its essence, a decent balancing measure.
Wanna consider real overkill? Consider transforming elections into selections like jury trials. Removing the personal gain angle into 100% civic duty would allow petitioning to revert to volunteers once again. That would level the playing field, would it not?
In the meantime, let us remind our legislators that our only 2 Petition Companies in Colorado, Lamm Consulting and Kennedy Enterprises were not involved at all with Protect Colorado's Future who are rumored to be linked with a larger union backed concern, dedicated to minimizing the oversight of Direct Democracy in the 26 states where this crucial process is “permitted”. It was common circulator knowledge that the Protect Colorado Future initiatives were present strictly to offset the “Right to Work” initiative which did not pass. This was subsequent to the failed “blocking” efforts of PCF to disqualify Right to Work.
Slippage? Yes. So do we counter with weekly polygraphs at the State Capitol or in house investigators looking into the lives and hidden rationale behind every vote of all our elected officials?
When the Legislature becomes actually regulated versus the current superficial constraints for public appearance appeasement, then perhaps there could be argument about egregious petitioning constraints. Until that day let us all remember 2 facts about the inititiative process that may have been minimized in the Legislature's “representative” protection of a few crybabies:
At the top of each petition page the potential signer is reminded to READ the text. And remember as well, only ONE registered voter at the address of that voter, is COUNTED for that one signer!!!
As a footnote Pelosi attempted the same tactic thru the California Legislature. It passed thru both Houses but upon arrival at the Govenor's desk it was TERMINATED. So when it comes to constituents, Republican, Democrat or other, balancing suggests not sawing off the branch upon which you sit!!

]]> By: Freedom09 http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform/comment-page-1#comment-22516 Freedom09 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:45:56 +0000 http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=24928#comment-22516 The process of Direct Democracy balances our election process and it's resulting legislative rulings. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees this balancing as "the right to redress grievence toward government."<br> Balancing allows for slippage in all facets of Life. If, say government were to be held to the same standards as are proposed toward the petitioning process in Colorado, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of legislative recall; IF it were to be permitted...<br> Therein is the reason for the petition process. The Founders understood the potential for legislative abuse, self-serving governance and the possible resulting anarchy by the people (with guns) who via violence could take back "their Government" in the same way the Revolutionary War revoked British rule.<br> Balancing counters extremes. So egregious far exceeds normal slippage. So is it a balancing act or an egregious act that prompt these proposals?<br> It's vital to understand the obvious! <br> Swatting a fly accomplishes the same end as attaching C4 to it. The proposals themselves are overkill. Referendum 0 would have passed had not the author slipped the last part in about a majority legislative vote dismissing a voter approved statute after 5 years. Again overkill.<br> Wanna consider real overkill? Consider transforming elections into selections like jury trials. Removing the personal gain angle into 100% civic duty would allow petitioning to revert to volunteers once again. That would level the playing field, would it not?<br> In the meantime, let us remind our legislators that our only 2 Petition Companies in Colorado, Lamm Consulting and Kennedy Enterprises were not involved at all with Protect Colorado's Future who are rumored to be linked with a larger union backed concern, dedicated to minimizing the oversight of Direct Democracy in the 26 states where this crucial process is "permitted". It was common circulator knowledge that the Protect Colorado Future initiatives were present strictly to offset the "Right to Work" initiative which did not pass. This was subsequent to the failed "blocking" efforts of PCF to disqualify Right to Work.<br> Slippage? Yes. So do we counter with weekly polygraphs at the State Capitol or in house investigators looking into the lives and hidden rationale behind every vote of all our elected officials?<br> When the Legislature becomes actually regulated versus the current superficial constraints for public appeasement, then perhaps there could be argument about egregious petitioning constraints. Until that day let us all remember 2 facts about the inititiative process that may have been forgotten:<br> At the top of each petition page the potential signer is reminded to READ the text. And remember as well, only ONE registered voter at the address of that voter, is COUNTED for that one signer!!! The process of Direct Democracy balances our election process and it's resulting legislative rulings. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees this balancing as “the right to redress grievence toward government.”
Balancing allows for slippage in all facets of Life. If, say government were to be held to the same standards as are proposed toward the petitioning process in Colorado, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of legislative recall; IF it were to be permitted…
Therein is the reason for the petition process. The Founders understood the potential for legislative abuse, self-serving governance and the possible resulting anarchy by the people (with guns) who via violence could take back “their Government” in the same way the Revolutionary War revoked British rule.
Balancing counters extremes. So egregious far exceeds normal slippage. So is it a balancing act or an egregious act that prompt these proposals?
It's vital to understand the obvious!
Swatting a fly accomplishes the same end as attaching C4 to it. The proposals themselves are overkill. Referendum 0 would have passed had not the author slipped the last part in about a majority legislative vote dismissing a voter approved statute after 5 years. Again overkill.
Wanna consider real overkill? Consider transforming elections into selections like jury trials. Removing the personal gain angle into 100% civic duty would allow petitioning to revert to volunteers once again. That would level the playing field, would it not?
In the meantime, let us remind our legislators that our only 2 Petition Companies in Colorado, Lamm Consulting and Kennedy Enterprises were not involved at all with Protect Colorado's Future who are rumored to be linked with a larger union backed concern, dedicated to minimizing the oversight of Direct Democracy in the 26 states where this crucial process is “permitted”. It was common circulator knowledge that the Protect Colorado Future initiatives were present strictly to offset the “Right to Work” initiative which did not pass. This was subsequent to the failed “blocking” efforts of PCF to disqualify Right to Work.
Slippage? Yes. So do we counter with weekly polygraphs at the State Capitol or in house investigators looking into the lives and hidden rationale behind every vote of all our elected officials?
When the Legislature becomes actually regulated versus the current superficial constraints for public appeasement, then perhaps there could be argument about egregious petitioning constraints. Until that day let us all remember 2 facts about the inititiative process that may have been forgotten:
At the top of each petition page the potential signer is reminded to READ the text. And remember as well, only ONE registered voter at the address of that voter, is COUNTED for that one signer!!!

]]> By: joeypresley http://coloradoindependent.com/24928/speaker-carroll-targets-initiative-petition-process-for-reform/comment-page-1#comment-22431 joeypresley Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:15:15 +0000 http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=24928#comment-22431 The owner of Kennedy enterprises is my brother in law and he is the most honest and decent man I know. He would never lie or decieve any one on purpose. If any of what you have wrote is a fact and he knew about it he would fire the people doing this on the spot. Try talking to Danny Kennedy and getting his side of the story. The owner of Kennedy enterprises is my brother in law and he is the most honest and decent man I know. He would never lie or decieve any one on purpose. If any of what you have wrote is a fact and he knew about it he would fire the people doing this on the spot. Try talking to Danny Kennedy and getting his side of the story.

]]>