Skip to main content

Black support for Bush drops to two percent
Nov 17, 2005
by Larry Elder ( bio | archive | contact )

So much for the Republican "outreach" to black voters, with only 2 percent of blacks "approving" of the president's performance.
If only blacks knew of the true history of the Democratic Party.
"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.
Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.
Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.
Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.
Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.
Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.
Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.
Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.
Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.
So next "Black History Month," pass some of this stuff along.
Larry Elder is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and publishes a monthly newsletter entitled "The Elder Statement." http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2005/11/17/175888.html
SHADOW777 PALADIN OF DISSENSION
Original Post
Oh' the Southern Strategy was innocuous. I see the light now!! A platform incorporating states' rights was a staple of the Dixiecrats, but now the wonderfully race neutral Republicans have adopted it. I gotcha'. When Reagan kicked off his presidential campaign in Philidelphia, MS and liberally referred to states' rights, he wasn't giving a wink and a nudge to the good people of ol' Mississippi and their resistance to civil rights.

I suppose that's why 99% of the Dixiecrats are now card-carrying conservative republicans.

'Groids are bottomless pits of stupidity. If Larry Elder would just come out of the closet he wouldn't debase himself by being such a whore for the rabid rightwing. He's one of those queens (not always so mean, but always a whore) the GOP uses regularly.

::Dixiecrats - from Wikipedia::
    Initially, it referred to a 1948 splinter from the party: for over a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but that year many bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States. Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly re-aligned from the Democrats to the Republicans, ...
quote:
I suppose that's why 99% of the Dixiecrats are now card-carrying conservative republicans.


First Isome - you have no basis for this claim one way or the other. There are plenty of "Dixiecrats" who died as Democrats. On the grounds of the state capital of Georgia the largest statue is that of Senator Richard B. Russell. Russell never voted for a single piece of Civil Rights legislation in his entire career. As you walk around and look at other figures you see a long list of Democrat govenors and legislators who's actions produced hell for Black people.

Despite the notion that business who conducted actions against Black people in the past should be held accountable today for their "institutional misdeeds" THE SAME IS NOT THE CASE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, an entity that has been in existence since slavery.

I have to question why it is so important to you to have the "Dixiecrats" having moved outside of the Democratic Party as a basis for your support of the Democratic Party? You sound like a Black lady who was an office holder in Ohio when she said "The Democratic Party has ALWAYS supported human rights and civil liberities". We both know that this is a LIE. People laking proper historical context will fail to make note of this.

I see that you once again forward the old tale about Reagan going to Philadelphia MS to kick off his campaign with a symbolic gesture to his racist base. Do you ever notice that people like you who you learned this from CAN NEVER PRODUCE THE TEXT OF ANY SPEECH THAT HE MADE WHILE THERE WHICH SUBSTANTIATES YOUR CLAIM OF RACISM?. I have produced the speech for all to see. Since you don't have EVIDENCE you are forced to resort to the "symbolism claim". In fact if this is your basis then you have to explain to me why several Democratic Candidates have gone to the same NESHOBA COUNTY FAIR that Reagan spoke at. This is a common practice for politicians to attend and make political speeches.

http://www.neshobacountyfair.org/

**********

It seems to me that we as Black People should shift our focus AWAY FROM what "Black people stand opposed to" (ie: Bush) and start to inspect WHAT BLACK PEOPLE SUPPORT - CORRELATING THIS TO THE CURRENT STATE OF TOO MANY OF OUR PEOPLE. It seems to me that whatever this POPULAR MANDATE IS it is NOT WORKING for our interests. Please like YOU will have us to EAT MORE OF WHAT HAS BEEN SERVED.
Isome,

You know we were supposed to stand by Strom and his "no niggers allowed" presidential policies and we should have not been supporting the Civil Rights Act but instead helped with the 24 hour filibuster to stop it from passing....why are you tripping? I mean think about it....white southerners have always been the black man's best friend.....they did get us out of Africa with that dirty azz water (end sarcasm)......It is a trip how I have studied and taught public policy at various levels to the point where I can teach analysis of policy outcomes and their tangible, measurable effects on target groups and also come from a politically aware family that has operated in both black nationalist pan africaism entities and mainstream municipal governments.....hell I could bascially delineate the differences between pro-black liberalism and racist white conservatism at the age of 13...yet I am still told that I do not understand issues from a pro-black perspective.....amazing huh? Myself and the black majority collective are finally realizing that there are some 2% vanguard thinkers of the race who are not us.....called blkCONS...and coincidentally agree with who we perceive to be our political enemies 100% of the time...as those enemies disagree with the black majority 100% of the time.....I wonder how I am able to pull of such a consistent con job as I dupe others into viewing what I say with credibility...pretty amazing huh?
quote:
:Big Grinixiecrats - from Wikipedia::
Initially, it referred to a 1948 splinter from the party: for over a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but that year many bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States. Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly re-aligned from the Democrats to the Republicans, ...



Isome....I think i'll ignore this statement also...it is a crock of BS (end sarcasm)....amazing how some can selectively miss reading parts of text......I wonder if it is a form of literary ADD or something..........
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

...you have no basis for this claim ... There are plenty of "Dixiecrats" who died as Democrats.


Yes, I do. Now you go count how many formerly known Dixiecrats are now Republicans, then count the ones in the Democratic party and try again. Otherwise shut your lying pie-hole.

quote:
As you walk around and look at other figures you see a long list of Democrat govenors and legislators who's actions produced hell for Black people.


Now look at the GOP and you'll find even more.

quote:
Despite the notion that business who conducted actions against Black people in the past should be held accountable today for their "institutional misdeeds" THE SAME IS NOT THE CASE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, an entity that has been in existence since slavery.


Again you create an argument that isn't germane to the subject of the thread.

quote:
I have to question why it is so important to you to have the "Dixiecrats" having moved outside of the Democratic Party as a basis for your support of the Democratic Party?


It's not important, it is fact. That is why most Black folks are now registered Democrats, while black lackeys are neo-cons.

quote:
Do you ever notice that people like you who you learned this from CAN NEVER PRODUCE THE TEXT OF ANY SPEECH THAT HE MADE WHILE THERE WHICH SUBSTANTIATES YOUR CLAIM OF RACISM?. I have produced the speech for all to see.


Don't see any reference to the text of the speech from that link. Try this:
    When Reagan took the stage, with dozens of Confederate flags festooning the fairground, the crowd chanted, "We want Reagan." A beaming Regan shouted back, "There isn't any place like this anywhere." There was thunderous applause, and rebel yells.

    Reagan then got down to business. He tore into Washington bureaucrats, i.e. the Democrats, big government and welfare. He then shouted the words that everyone wanted to hear, "I believe in states' rights. I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to the federal establishment."


quote:
Since you don't have EVIDENCE you are forced to resort to the "symbolism claim".


There is no symbolism is his excited statement, "I believe in state's rights," there is an explicit implication. There is, however, an abundance of symbolism in the fact that he was the first presidential candidate to make it a point to kick off his campaign there in the years since Neshoba County's unforgivable cover-up of murder. And, even more symbolism in the reference to the infamous & mythical welfare queens, also included in his speech.

You don't know history, all you know are the talkingpoints given to you by white folks.
"Black people used to be Republicans." Confused Confused Can somebody tell me what the heyll that has to do with anything anymore? And why do Republicans try to use that as some kind of rationale?? And as a rationale of WHAT exactly? Confused

I mean, things used to be a lot of things that they aren't now ... Just because in the past we did things one way doesn't mean we need to go back that way or that it's the same as it was. Black people used to be enslaved!! Are we supposed to wish for the return of that, too?? We used to risk death to learn to read and write ... should we say we don't need Affirmative Action in the education system because we used to couldn't get an eduation??

So the hell what if the political party that had the platform that was less detrimental to Black people used to be called the Republican party?? It dang sure isn't called that today! So, we should vote Republican because 150 years ago a Republican Congress passed "pro-black civil rights laws" ... but in this last session the current Congress has cut the funding of every social program every created to help Black people, and this president, himself, as well as the Republican-led Congress petitioned the Supreme Court against allowing extra consideration being given to Black students seeking to enroll in college??
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
"Black people used to be Republicans." Confused Confused Can somebody tell me what the heyll that has to do with anything anymore? And why do Republicans try to use that as some kind of rationale?? And as a rationale of WHAT exactly? Confused

...So, we should vote Republican because 150 years ago a Republican Congress passed "pro-black civil rights laws" ... but in this last session the current Congress has cut the funding of every social program every created to help Black people, and this president, himself, as well as the Republican-led Congress petitioned the Supreme Court against allowing extra consideration being given to Black students seeking to enroll in college??


Yeah!! What she said!!
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
"Black people used to be Republicans." Confused Confused Can somebody tell me what the heyll that has to do with anything anymore? And why do Republicans try to use that as some kind of rationale?? And as a rationale of WHAT exactly? Confused

I mean, things used to be a lot of things that they aren't now ... Just because in the past we did things one way doesn't mean we need to go back that way or that it's the same as it was. Black people used to be enslaved!! Are we supposed to wish for the return of that, too?? We used to risk death to learn to read and write ... should we say we don't need Affirmative Action in the education system because we used to couldn't get an eduation??

So the hell what if the political party that had the platform that was less detrimental to Black people used to be called the Republican party?? It dang sure isn't called that today! So, we should vote Republican because 150 years ago a Republican Congress passed "pro-black civil rights laws" ... but in this last session the current Congress has cut the funding of every social program every created to help Black people, and this president, himself, as well as the Republican-led Congress petitioned the Supreme Court against allowing extra consideration being given to Black students seeking to enroll in college??



Girl, I feel you...my sentiments exactly! It is true that the Republicans in the past were a bit more pro-Black but it seems the modern-day Republicans have largely shifted from that stance. The modern day Republicans just seem to have great skills at manipulating history and facts to suit their purposes!
quote:
has cut the funding of every social program every created to help Black people


Ebonyrose PLEASE PROVE THIS.


Education Spending UP - at least 49% above any budget that Clinton Ever produced.

Even the fabled "20th Century Education Fund" that my friend Kevin attempted to pull a fast one on the other day - started out with $183(?) million in funding under Clinton. Is budgeted to have $991 million in 2006.

Please detail the social spending that has BEEN CUT? You will be able to find INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS that you may have favored that have been cut. You cannot find an over all trend of SLASHING AND BURNING of social programs.

Bush can best be termed the "Tax Cut and Spending Like A Drunken Sailor President".

It is simply amazing to me how the new TALKING POINT has shifted from "the amount of spending that you produce 'shows your love'" over to 'The amount that you have PROMISED TO SPEND yet have fallen short of IS GROUNDS FOR ATTACK, regardless of if you have spent more money than the 'president who we loved'"

Again PROVE YOUR POINT about the slashing of social programs. IT AIN'T SO.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
"Black people used to be Republicans." Confused Confused Can somebody tell me what the heyll that has to do with anything anymore? And why do Republicans try to use that as some kind of rationale?? And as a rationale of WHAT exactly? Confused

REply>>>>
History is history, Thre is no time limit on how to use history. History is one second old.
Recent history is no different, then years old history.


I mean, things used to be a lot of things that they aren't now ... Just because in the past we did things one way doesn't mean we need to go back that way or that it's the same as it was. Black people used to be enslaved!! Are we supposed to wish for the return of that, too?? We used to risk death to learn to read and write ... should we say we don't need Affirmative Action in the education system because we used to couldn't get an eduation??

So the hell what if the political party that had the platform that was less detrimental to Black people used to be called the Republican party?? It dang sure isn't called that today! So, we should vote Republican because 150 years ago a Republican Congress passed "pro-black civil rights laws" ... but in this last session the current Congress has cut the funding of every social program every created to help Black people, and this president, himself, as well as the Republican-led Congress petitioned the Supreme Court against allowing extra consideration being given to Black students seeking to enroll in college??


reply>>>>>>
Funding every social progam, does not make it right. The people who pay for it all deserves some of their money back. No one has the right to other folks hard earned money.
Quote>.If you didn't produce the funds, then the funds don't belong to you."

and this president, himself, as well as the Republican-led Congress petitioned the Supreme Court against allowing extra consideration being given to Black students seeking to enroll in


REply>>Where are the facts showing Bush and the REpublicans led congress,... this does mean Liberals too, petitioned the Supreme Court?
Besides this is a moot point because>>>>
national affirmative action victory that resulted from the Supreme Court decision in Grutter v Bollinger by opposing Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action ballot initiative, deceptively known as the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" (MCRI).
THis is another smoke screen.

http://www.rucenturion.com/archive/NovCenturion.pdf
Page 22
˜The price of Diginty'
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
... but in this last session the current Congress has cut the funding of every social program every created to help Black people, and this president, himself, as well as the Republican-led Congress petitioned the Supreme Court against allowing extra consideration being given to Black students seeking to enroll in college??




WAPO
18.Nov.05

The House narrowly approved a broad five-year budget plan early this morning that squeezes programs for the poor, for college students and for farmers, handing Republican leaders a hard-fought victory after weeks of resistance in GOP ranks.

:: link ::
quote:
THIS IS A BLATANT LIE - PLEASE PROVE IT
It will be a long wait... There's this long ass backlog of things REQUIRING SUPPORT/PROOF because of a certain poster who runs like a Bitch On Fire when he is (when you, CF, are) asked to substantiate his claims.

Dude... STFU!!! I got your WOLF TICKETS. And don't you say another got damn word to anybody until your stop being the PUNK (or is it pussy?) that you are when it comes to PROVING the shit you say.

Now, run your little ass along... (like always).
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
It will be a long wait... There's this backlog of things REQUIRING SUPPORT/PROOF because of a certain poster who runs like a Bitch On Fire when he is (when you, CF, are) asked to substantiate his claims.


*lol* My question to you, Nmaginate, is how do you keep this foolio from constantly addressing you when he posts to a topic. Every time I think I'll just scroll past his convoluted posts, I'm assaulted by another of his presumption-laden diatribes specifically about what I think or believe or do. At first it was annoying, now it's plain weird!

Is there a brand of roach spray that works best on him... I heard that bitch-be-gone brand might be effective.

BTW, I did you get my message?
Interesting - three of the many FUNDAMENTALISTS on this board when presented with a challenge that thwarts a central talking point to their flawed theories - they choose to ATTACK ME rather than going forth and proving me wrong.

I see how the game works.

I sleep comfortably knowing that even though you all can claim a POPULAR mandate in Black America you will never, never, never accept responsibility for the lack of change within Black America with the spotlight being focused on your ideology and how it is NEVER going to lead our people toward the "Promised Land".

Do you really believe that I hold out hope that I will one day get your approval if I simply do a spell check on my posts or hand my ideas off to a professional writer to tighten it up a bit?

It is the content of my posts that is like salt on a snails back to you. Many of you don't like being questioned or challenged. There a so many false tales that spread like wildfire around the Black community. Though many who know better know they are lies - they allow them to continue because in the end it serves their own purpose.

It is my contention that only a shift to a focus on RESULTS and away from POPULARITY will allow the average Black community in America to prosper. Such a shift STRIPS the slick elocutioner of the power that he has on the stage and forces him to show evidence of his words by real world measure.

I have a large stockpile of salt to pour on you all's backs - hoping that by reminding you of the truth that you will begin to shift from an attack based ideology to a management based ideology. For some of you will not change and will have to be PUSHED THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY by a groundswell of new thought that comes from the grassroots as Black people tire of your tired talk that has produced so few results WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY rather than just having WHITE FOLKS to stop doing things to injure Black people. Conceptually the most evident way to show your theories for what they are is to imagine them in play IF THE WHITE FOLKS WERE TO LEAVE YOU AND THERE WOULD BE NO ACTIVE RACISM FOR YOU TO BASE 90% OF YOUR EFFORTS UPON. We see this in the majority Black cities of Detroit, Camden, Newark, East St Louis, Benton Harbor and others.

But you see for many of you YOU JUST INTERPRETED THIS LAST SENTENCE AS AN "ATTACK ON BLACK PEOPLE" rather than an "ATTACK ON THE CURRENT POPULAR MINDSET THAT BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED TO BELIEVE". I base my views on the strong knowlege that BLACK PEOPLE CAN CHANGE. In your agenda against me you must have me to be made to say that "Black people are permanently inferior" and thus you have grounds to dismiss me. A LIAR YOU ARE.

If I believed that Blacks were inferior then I am inferior because I am Black. A foolish attack that does not stand to reason.

Once again - PROVE TO ME THAT THE WAY THAT YOU THINK HAS BENEFITED BLACK PEOPLE INSIDE OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY where we must deal with each other one on one and not just in the struggle with White folks. There are far more daily interactions between Black people on a daily basis than between Black and White.

Sadly though - these Black on Black engagements, the portion of which are debilitating to us (ie: crime or the use of the N word) aren't popular issues to advocate against since you might "step on someone's toes" having to tell them about theirselves. One is sure to get attacked in doing so.

I have to conclude that many of you are not content with your current circumstances BUT not discontent enough to fundamentally change your ways. Anger and protests are about the only means that you know how to accomplish change. Methods that take longer and that require more discipline such as MANAGEMENT of your internal resources are something that you have no knowledge of.
quote:
Interesting - three of the many FUNDAMENTALISTS on this board when presented with a challenge that thwarts a central talking point to their flawed theories - they choose to ATTACK ME rather than going forth and proving me wrong.
Like I already told you... You can't and don't "challenge" anything or anybody when you make a claim or dare call yourself calling someone else on something when you then run your scared ass away from the topic when counterpoints are registered.

Now, you posted this BS:
quote:
Do you ever notice that people like you who you learned this from CAN NEVER PRODUCE THE TEXT OF ANY SPEECH THAT HE MADE WHILE THERE WHICH SUBSTANTIATES YOUR CLAIM OF RACISM?
ISOME registered here defense of what she posted. Now, unless you have a counterpoint that contends with what she said.... STFU!!!

And I'd be damn... Your PUNK ASS didn't mention a damn thing about Reagan and Phila-MS after your supposed "challenge" was answered. WHY DO YOU PUNK OUT SO EASILY??
Nmaginate:

I have posted the entire text of Reagan's speech in Philadelphia Miss. Your question and Isome's question are nothing more than reruns of points that I have already put to bed in the minds of OBJECTIVE people.

Instead folks resort to claims of "symbolism" when they don't have FACTS on their side. Symbolism is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't feel the need to go out of my way to constantly repeat what I have already address.

(Now if you could just tell Kevin not to ask me again how I would vote if AA were up for consideration I would appreciate that as well. hitit )

You don't have to worry - I fear NO ONE on this message board and have no need to "run away". I do value my time and don't wish to waste it with games though. (You don't seem to have this limit).
quote:
Your question and Isome's question are nothing more than reruns of points that I have already put to bed in the minds of OBJECTIVE people.

lol lol

quote:
I do value my time and don't wish to waste it with games though
(even more laughter)
lol lol lol lol
lol lol lol lol


quote:
Don't see any reference to the text of the speech from that link.
PUNK ASS MOTHERF%CK@#!!! You're as scared as ever. Little game playing little girl.
quote:
Reagan wasn't a racist. His personal letters and private reflections made public over the years confirm that. But he couldn't have been ignorant of Philadelphia's history. Seems to me the only logical conclusion here is that Reagan calculated the support he'd get from the working white south for the move's symoblism was more important to him than avoiding giving implied approval to the south's nasty racial history.
Is that the "symbolism" you're talking about?
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
Nmaginate:

I have posted the entire text of Reagan's speech in Philadelphia Miss. Your question and Isome's question are nothing more than reruns of points that I have already put to bed in the minds of OBJECTIVE people.


We are as objective as you are. Now stop acting brand new and post the text of Reagan's speech and its source, because I do not see it in this thread.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×