100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Cool! Sin Tax being floated as an idea.! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2 the SCHIP bill that increased tobacco was introduced Jan 13, 2009 and signed Feb 4 2009 Did you see all the good the bill does? I would excuse him raising that tax just for those benefits to the children. It was introduced before Obama was in office too. Obama was sworn in on Jan 20th. I'm sure you would. but when you thought Bush had to have something to do with it...that was wrong of him. even if Bush started it...BHO signed it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2 the SCHIP bill that increased tobacco was introduced Jan 13, 2009 and signed Feb 4 2009 To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. Wrong link? nope...right link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full Disclosure:
The following are amendments proposed for this legislation. Click an amendment's name to read the text of the amendment, where available. (1) S.Amdt. 39 by Sen. Baucus [D-MT] In the nature of a substitute. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Accepted: Jan 27, 2009. (2) S.Amdt. 40 by Sen. McConnell [R-KY] In the nature of a substitute. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 28, 2009. Jan 28, 2009. Amendment SA 40 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 32 - 65. Record Vote Number: 18. [View Details] (3) S.Amdt. 41 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] To strike the option to provide coverage to legal immigrants and increase the enrollment of uninsured low income American children. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 28, 2009. (4) S.Amdt. 42 by Sen. DeMint [R-SC] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (5) S.Amdt. 43 by Sen. DeMint [R-SC] To require States to impose cost-sharing for any individual enrolled in a State child health plan whose income exceeds 200 percent of the poverty line. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 27, 2009. Jan 27, 2009. Motion to table amendment SA 43 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 37. Record Vote Number: 16. [View Details] (6) S.Amdt. 44 by Sen. DeMint [R-SC] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (7) S.Amdt. 45 by Sen. Hatch [R-UT] To prohibit any Federal matching payment for Medicaid or CHIP coverage of noncitizen children or pregnant women until a State demonstrates that it has enrolled 95 percent of the children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP who reside in the State and whose family income does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 27, 2009. (8) S.Amdt. 46 by Sen. Kyl [R-AZ] To reinstate the crowd out policy agreed to in section 116 of H.R. 3963 (CHIPRA II), as agreed to and passed by the House and Senate. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 28, 2009. Jan 28, 2009. Amendment SA 46 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 42 - 56. Record Vote Number: 22. [View Details] (9) S.Amdt. 47 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK] To ensure that children do not lose their private insurance and that uninsured children can get access to private insurance. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. Jan 29, 2009. Amendment SA 47 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 36 - 62. Record Vote Number: 24. [View Details] (10) S.Amdt. 48 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (11) S.Amdt. 49 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK] To prevent fraud and restore fiscal accountability to the Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. (12) S.Amdt. 50 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK] To restore fiscal discipline by making the Medicaid and SCHIP programs more accountable and efficient. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Accepted: Jan 29, 2009. (13) S.Amdt. 51 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (14) S.Amdt. 52 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (15) S.Amdt. 53 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (16) S.Amdt. 54 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (17) S.Amdt. 55 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (18) S.Amdt. 56 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (19) S.Amdt. 57 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (20) S.Amdt. 58 by Sen. Webb [D-VA] To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a revenue source through the treatment of income of partners for performing investment management services as ordinary income received for performance of services and reduce accordingly the tobacco tax increase as a revenue source. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Withdrawn: Jan 28, 2009. (21) S.Amdt. 59 by Sen. Vitter [R-LA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (22) S.Amdt. 60 by Sen. Wicker [R-MS] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (23) S.Amdt. 61 by Sen. Bingaman [D-NM] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (24) S.Amdt. 62 by Sen. Bingaman [D-NM] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (25) S.Amdt. 63 by Sen. Bingaman [D-NM] To clarify that new paperwork and enrollment barriers are not created in the Express Lane Enrollment option and that income may be determined by Express Lane agencies based on State income tax records or returns. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Accepted: Jan 29, 2009. Jan 29, 2009. Amendment SA 63 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 55 - 43. Record Vote Number: 29. [View Details] (26) S.Amdt. 64 by Sen. Bingaman [D-NM] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (27) S.Amdt. 65 by Sen. Martinez [R-FL] To restore the prohibition on funding of nongovernmental organizations that promote abortion as a method of birth control (the "Mexico City Policy"). Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 28, 2009. Jan 28, 2009. Amendment SA 65 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 37 - 60. Record Vote Number: 19. [View Details] (28) S.Amdt. 66 by Sen. Cornyn [R-TX] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (29) S.Amdt. 67 by Sen. Cornyn [R-TX] To ensure redistributed funds go towards coverage of low-income children or outreach and enrollment of low-income children, rather than to States that will use the funds to cover children from higher income families. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 28, 2009. Jan 28, 2009. Motion to table amendment SA 67 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 64 - 33. Record Vote Number: 20. [View Details] (30) S.Amdt. 68 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (31) S.Amdt. 69 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (32) S.Amdt. 70 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (33) S.Amdt. 71 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] To extend the State Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 quarters in order to enact bipartisan, comprehensive health care reform. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. (34) S.Amdt. 72 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (35) S.Amdt. 73 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 27, 2009. (36) S.Amdt. 74 by Sen. Bunning [R-KY] To eliminate any exceptions to the prohibition on States receiving an enhanced Federal matching rate for providing coverage to children whose family income exceeds 300 percent of the poverty line. Proposed: Jan 28, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. Jan 29, 2009. Motion to table amendment SA 74 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 54 - 44. Record Vote Number: 25. [View Details] (37) S.Amdt. 75 by Sen. Roberts [R-KS] To prohibit CHIP coverage for higher income children and to prohibit any payments to a State from its CHIP allotments for any fiscal year quarter in which the State Medicaid income eligibility level for children is greater than the income eligibility level for children under CHIP. Proposed: Jan 28, 2009. Rejected: Jan 28, 2009. Jan 28, 2009. Amendment SA 75 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 36 - 60. Record Vote Number: 21. [View Details] (38) S.Amdt. 76 by Sen. Roberts [R-KS] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 28, 2009. (39) S.Amdt. 77 by Sen. Murkowski [R-AK] To provide for the development of best practice recommendations and to ensure coverage of low income children. Proposed: Jan 28, 2009. Rejected: Jan 28, 2009. Jan 28, 2009. Amendment SA 77 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 47 - 51. Record Vote Number: 23. [View Details] (40) S.Amdt. 78 by Sen. Martinez [R-FL] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 28, 2009. (41) S.Amdt. 79 by Sen. Brown [D-OH] To strengthen and protect health care access, and to benefit children in need of cancer care or other acute care services. Proposed: Jan 28, 2009. Withdrawn: Jan 28, 2009. (42) S.Amdt. 80 by Sen. Hatch [R-UT] To codify regulations specifying that an unborn child is eligible for child health assistance. Proposed: Jan 28, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. Jan 29, 2009. Amendment SA 80 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 39 - 59. Record Vote Number: 26. [View Details] (43) S.Amdt. 81 by Sen. Bunning [R-KY] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 28, 2009. (44) S.Amdt. 82 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. (45) S.Amdt. 83 by Sen. Grassley [R-IA] In the nature of a substitute. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. (46) S.Amdt. 84 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. (47) S.Amdt. 85 by Sen. DeMint [R-SC] To provide an above-the-line Federal income tax deduction for health care costs of certain children in an amount comparable to the average federal share of the benefit provided to any non-citizen child for medical assistance or child health assistance. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. Jan 29, 2009. Amendment SA 85 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 40 - 58. Record Vote Number: 27. [View Details] (48) S.Amdt. 86 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK] To ensure that American children have high-quality health coverage that fits their individual needs. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. Jan 29, 2009. Amendment SA 86 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 36 - 62. Record Vote Number: 28. [View Details] (49) S.Amdt. 87 by Sen. Stabenow [D-MI] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. (50) S.Amdt. 88 by Sen. Stabenow [D-MI] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. (51) S.Amdt. 89 by Sen. Stabenow [D-MI] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. (52) S.Amdt. 90 by Sen. Stabenow [D-MI] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. (53) S.Amdt. 91 by Sen. Stabenow [D-MI] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. (54) S.Amdt. 92 by Sen. Coburn [R-OK] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. (55) S.Amdt. 93 by Sen. Hutchison [R-TX] To provide assistance for States with percentages of children with no health insurance coverage above the national average. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. Rejected: Jan 29, 2009. Jan 29, 2009. Amendment SA 93 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 17 - 81. Record Vote Number: 30. [View Details] (56) S.Amdt. 94 by Sen. Baucus [D-MT] To make a technical correction to the option to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. Accepted: Jan 29, 2009. (57) S.Amdt. 95 by Sen. Baucus [D-MT] To make technical corrections to the State option to provide dental-only supplemental coverage. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. Accepted: Jan 29, 2009. (58) S.Amdt. 96 by Sen. Baucus [D-MT] To clarify that no eligible entity that receives an outreach and enrollment grant is required to provide matching funds. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. Accepted: Jan 29, 2009. (59) S.Amdt. 97 by Sen. Baucus [D-MT] Of a technical nature. Proposed: Jan 29, 2009. Accepted: Jan 29, 2009. (60) S.Amdt. 244 by Sen. Cornyn [R-TX] Amendment information not available. Proposed: Feb 4, 2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you realize jeff..that we are talking about the SCHIP tax hike that hiked tobacco taxes up so much...right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jeffterry
on
Wed 09/09/09 10:44 PM
|
|
This is how our laws are made ladies and gentlemen.
I apologize I thought I made reference to the correct law and bill. I f I am in error I appreciate being corrected. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 ya think???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
yellowrose10
on
Wed 09/09/09 10:45 PM
|
|
a simple statement "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." "ANY" taxes thats a broad statement. If i remember correctly those taxes on tobacco were made into law months before he took office. Maybe I'm wrong? The ball started rolling in Bush's time on that tax for sure. I am not sure if Obama had anything to do with it other than implementing the final version. so it was Bush's bad when it was assumed this bill happened under Bush...but perfectly fine now that it started under BHO????? WOW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich. To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always. "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1 Again Adj, I don't think he was even focusing on cigs and sugar, but again you don't like the guy so I won't keep arguing it. Liar to you. Not to me. do not even begin to tell me what i think nor who i like or dislike i do not like nor dislike him obviously you forgot my posts from when he got elected the facts speak for themselves Oh for heaven sakes don't get you shorts in a knot.  my post from just after the election Topic: My appology to black america good thing that they did not hold washington to the standard that some are trying to hold obama to he would have never been president not saying obama is a washington (but not saying hae cant be) obama is in a unique position he can free america as much as washington di if he so choses his party has overwhelming control of congress and the senate he could get the antiterrorist bill and the patriot act repealed he could instill term limits he could get line item veto he could do a lot of good things but will he that is the question http://mingle2.com/topic/show/178339 ---------- yep that sure looks like i dislike him |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a simple statement "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." "ANY" taxes thats a broad statement. If i remember correctly those taxes on tobacco were made into law months before he took office. Maybe I'm wrong? The ball started rolling in Bush's time on that tax for sure. I am not sure if Obama had anything to do with it other than implementing the final version. so it was Bush's bad when it was assumed this bill happened under Bush...but perfectly fine now that it started under BHO????? WOW Simple answer? No. Complex answer? do we have time? a ball is a hard thing to stop. people that believed that O was the Savior have a good thing coming. I think he has done as good as he could, worse was done 30 years ago with Nixon and Ford. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich. To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always. "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1 Again Adj, I don't think he was even focusing on cigs and sugar, but again you don't like the guy so I won't keep arguing it. Liar to you. Not to me. do not even begin to tell me what i think nor who i like or dislike i do not like nor dislike him obviously you forgot my posts from when he got elected the facts speak for themselves Oh for heaven sakes don't get you shorts in a knot. my post from just after the election Topic: My appology to black america good thing that they did not hold washington to the standard that some are trying to hold obama to he would have never been president not saying obama is a washington (but not saying hae cant be) obama is in a unique position he can free america as much as washington di if he so choses his party has overwhelming control of congress and the senate he could get the antiterrorist bill and the patriot act repealed he could instill term limits he could get line item veto he could do a lot of good things but will he that is the question http://mingle2.com/topic/show/178339 ---------- yep that sure looks like i dislike him Ok good, so now I know you liked him at first. But now he's a liar and he didn't live up to what you expected him to do. You expected him to do all that in 7 months? and you expected him to actually be able to do all that once in office, as if things are that easy once in there and knowing what he's up against? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are people that change their minds about this president and past presidents....whether for the better or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Wed 09/09/09 11:21 PM
|
|
WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich. To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always. "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1 Again Adj, I don't think he was even focusing on cigs and sugar, but again you don't like the guy so I won't keep arguing it. Liar to you. Not to me. do not even begin to tell me what i think nor who i like or dislike i do not like nor dislike him obviously you forgot my posts from when he got elected the facts speak for themselves Oh for heaven sakes don't get you shorts in a knot. my post from just after the election Topic: My appology to black america good thing that they did not hold washington to the standard that some are trying to hold obama to he would have never been president not saying obama is a washington (but not saying hae cant be) obama is in a unique position he can free america as much as washington di if he so choses his party has overwhelming control of congress and the senate he could get the antiterrorist bill and the patriot act repealed he could instill term limits he could get line item veto he could do a lot of good things but will he that is the question http://mingle2.com/topic/show/178339 ---------- yep that sure looks like i dislike him Ok good, so now I know you liked him at first. But now he's a liar and he didn't live up to what you expected him to do. You expected him to do all that in 7 months? and you expected him to actually be able to do all that once in office, as if things are that easy once in there and knowing what he's up against? """""""he didn't live up to what you expected him to do"""""""" no he did not i expected him to keep his word and as you correctly said he did not do it see agian you misspeak i neither like nor dislike him he is what he is and the facts speak for themselves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are people that change their minds about this president and past presidents....whether for the better or worse. No chit Sherlock, really? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are people that change their minds about this president and past presidents....whether for the better or worse. No chit Sherlock, really? the point is....why can't people now not like this presidents politics? I think he lied to...but I'm not surprised....he's a politician |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich. To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always. "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1 Again Adj, I don't think he was even focusing on cigs and sugar, but again you don't like the guy so I won't keep arguing it. Liar to you. Not to me. do not even begin to tell me what i think nor who i like or dislike i do not like nor dislike him obviously you forgot my posts from when he got elected the facts speak for themselves Oh for heaven sakes don't get you shorts in a knot. my post from just after the election Topic: My appology to black america good thing that they did not hold washington to the standard that some are trying to hold obama to he would have never been president not saying obama is a washington (but not saying hae cant be) obama is in a unique position he can free america as much as washington di if he so choses his party has overwhelming control of congress and the senate he could get the antiterrorist bill and the patriot act repealed he could instill term limits he could get line item veto he could do a lot of good things but will he that is the question http://mingle2.com/topic/show/178339 ---------- yep that sure looks like i dislike him Ok good, so now I know you liked him at first. But now he's a liar and he didn't live up to what you expected him to do. You expected him to do all that in 7 months? and you expected him to actually be able to do all that once in office, as if things are that easy once in there and knowing what he's up against? see agian you misspeak i neither like nor dislike him he is what he is and the facts speak for themselves I'm just taking a stab at your vagueness. I really don't care if you like him or not, it's fine with me if you don't. It's just curious to me that you interpret it that way, but hell I am so tired right now that none of it matters to me. Night Adj... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""""""he didn't live up to what you expected him to do"""""""" no he did not i expected him to keep his word and as you correctly said he did not do it i am not interpreting anything you are interpreting not me i take his word literally you are not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are people that change their minds about this president and past presidents....whether for the better or worse. No chit Sherlock, really? the point is....why can't people now not like this presidents politics? I think he lied to...but I'm not surprised....he's a politician Who said they couldn't think what ever they want? Not everyone is going to interpret what he said the way I did or the way that adj did. I am not as cynical as you or others about all politicians, so I don't automatically assume some one is a liar because they haven't lived up to my every expectation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are people that change their minds about this president and past presidents....whether for the better or worse. No chit Sherlock, really? the point is....why can't people now not like this presidents politics? I think he lied to...but I'm not surprised....he's a politician Who said they couldn't think what ever they want? Not everyone is going to interpret what he said the way I did or the way that adj did. I am not as cynical as you or others about all politicians, so I don't automatically assume some one is a liar because they haven't lived up to my every expectation. I just don't get my hopes up. I wait for people to prove it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""""""he didn't live up to what you expected him to do"""""""" no he did not i expected him to keep his word and as you correctly said he did not do it i am not interpreting anything you are interpreting not me i take his word literally you are not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""""""he didn't live up to what you expected him to do"""""""" no he did not i expected him to keep his word and as you correctly said he did not do it i am not interpreting anything you are interpreting not me i take his word literally you are not |
|
|
|
|
