admiral casino glasgowWe believe our concession is not at risk,” he added.LVS reported earnings of 9 million in Q3, up 2.2 percent on the corresponding period last year. Florida’s November ballot will ask voters whether commercial dog racing — and gambling on it — should be banned in the state.To the supporters of Amendment 13, dog racing is cruel and unnecessary in Florida, but opponents see it as a hidden, creeping extreme animal rights agenda, despite reassurances from the Florida Supreme Court. But it fell short of analysts’ expectations of 9 percent climb in earnings. online casino games that pay cash(Image: no download slots gamesParx Casino/Shippensburg University/Casino.org)Greenwood won the so-called “mini-casino” license at a February auction with a winning bid of .1 million. (Image: David Spencer/The Palm Beach Post)On the face of it, the question posed by Amendment 13 is simple enough, but the choice of language included in the amendment has transformed it into one of the most controversial issues on the ballot — and one that appears to transcend traditional Republican and Democratic political divisions.It’s the opening preamble that has caused all the trouble and, as November 6 approaches, the argument has turned toxic.The first sentence of the amendment summary states that “the humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of thno download slots gamese State of Florida.”‘Outright Trickeration’The Florida Greyhound Racing Association (FGRA) — backed by a coalition including the Florida Farm Bureau, National Rifle Association and Florida Cattlemen’s Association — believes this statement would enable animal rights groups to sue to ban not just dog racing, but anything from hunting and fishing to cattle pet ownership.The FGRA sued to have the measure wiped off the ballot and was briefly successful.In early August, lower court judge Karen Gievers ordered it off the ballot, ruling the offending sentence would mislead voters, and branded it “outright ‘trickeration.’ ”But a month later, the State Supreme Court ordered it back by a count of six to one.“Amendment 13’s fundamental value provision is devoid of any legislative or judicial mandate: it bestows no rights, imposes no duties, and does not empower the Legislature to take any action,” ruled the court.Despite the ruling suggesting their fears are overblown, opponents to Amendment 13 are still not satisfied.“Animal rights leaders are in a panic,” claimed Sunshine State News columnist Marrion P Hammer in an op-ed on Tuesday. Most would like nothing more than to decouple themselves from racing and continue with their operations, minus the dogs.is online gambling illegal

7 free slots treasures of egypt

sycuan casino mask policyf Macau, we’ve been wildly successful and our billion statement in the call to bring The Londoner to fruition … is proof positive that actions speak louder than words.“If there’s not a vote of confidence in that, I don’t know what is. (Image: David Spencer/The Palm Beach Post)On the face of it, the question posed by Amendment 13 is simple enough, but the choice of language included in the amendment has transformed it into one of the most controversial issues on the ballot — and one that appears to transcend traditional Republican and Democratic political divisions.It’s the opening preamble that has caused all the trouble and, as November 6 approaches, the argument has turned toxic.The first sentence of the amendment summary states that “the humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of thno download slots gamese State of Florida.”‘Outright Trickeration’The Florida Greyhound Racing Association (FGRA) — backed by a coalition including the Florida Farm Bureau, National Rifle Association and Florida Cattlemen’s Association — believes this statement would enable animal rights groups to sue to ban not just dog racing, but anything from hunting and fishing to cattle pet ownership.The FGRA sued to have the measure wiped off the ballot and was briefly successful.In early August, lower court judge Karen Gievers ordered it off the ballot, ruling the offending sentence would mislead voters, and branded it “outright ‘trickeration.’ ”But a month later, the State Supreme Court ordered it back by a count of six to one.“Amendment 13’s fundamental value provision is devoid of any legislative or judicial mandate: it bestows no rights, imposes no duties, and does not empower the Legislature to take any action,” ruled the court.Despite the ruling suggesting their fears are overblown, opponents to Amendment 13 are still not satisfied.“Animal rights leaders are in a panic,” claimed Sunshine State News columnist Marrion P Hammer in an op-ed on Tuesday. (Image: David Spencer/The Palm Beach Post)On the face of it, the question posed by Amendment 13 is simple enough, but the choice of language included in the amendment has transformed it into one of the most controversial issues on the ballot — and one that appears to transcend traditional Republican and Democratic political divisions.It’s the opening preamble that has caused all the trouble and, as November 6 approaches, the argument has turned toxic.The first sentence of the amendment summary states that “the humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of thno download slots gamese State of Florida.”‘Outright Trickeration’The Florida Greyhound Racing Association (FGRA) — backed by a coalition including the Florida Farm Bureau, National Rifle Association and Florida Cattlemen’s Association — believes this statement would enable animal rights groups to sue to ban not just dog racing, but anything from hunting and fishing to cattle pet ownership.The FGRA sued to have the measure wiped off the ballot and was briefly successful.In early August, lower court judge Karen Gievers ordered it off the ballot, ruling the offending sentence would mislead voters, and branded it “outright ‘trickeration.’ ”But a month later, the State Supreme Court ordered it back by a count of six to one.“Amendment 13’s fundamental value provision is devoid of any legislative or judicial mandate: it bestows no rights, imposes no duties, and does not empower the Legislature to take any action,” ruled the court.Despite the ruling suggesting their fears are overblown, opponents to Amendment 13 are still not satisfied.“Animal rights leaders are in a panic,” claimed Sunshine State News columnist Marrion P Hammer in an op-ed on Tuesday. admiral casino portsmouthBut it fell short of analysts’ expectations of 9 percent climb in earnings. He said “No” advocates were pushing the language angle because they had “run out of rational arguments.”“I would never support a ballot measure that was deceptively trying to ban hunting or fishing,” he told Florida Politics. We believe our concession is not at risk,” he added.LVS reported earnings of 9 million in Q3, up 2.2 percent on the corresponding period last year. kim k hollywood casino

online gambling uk

sycuan casino glabdoor(Image: David Spencer/The Palm Beach Post)On the face of it, the question posed by Amendment 13 is simple enough, but the choice of language included in the amendment has transformed it into one of the most controversial issues on the ballot — and one that appears to transcend traditional Republican and Democratic political divisions.It’s the opening preamble that has caused all the trouble and, as November 6 approaches, the argument has turned toxic.The first sentence of the amendment summary states that “the humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of thno download slots gamese State of Florida.”‘Outright Trickeration’The Florida Greyhound Racing Association (FGRA) — backed by a coalition including the Florida Farm Bureau, National Rifle Association and Florida Cattlemen’s Association — believes this statement would enable animal rights groups to sue to ban not just dog racing, but anything from hunting and fishing to cattle pet ownership.The FGRA sued to have the measure wiped off the ballot and was briefly successful.In early August, lower court judge Karen Gievers ordered it off the ballot, ruling the offending sentence would mislead voters, and branded it “outright ‘trickeration.’ ”But a month later, the State Supreme Court ordered it back by a count of six to one.“Amendment 13’s fundamental value provision is devoid of any legislative or judicial mandate: it bestows no rights, imposes no duties, and does not empower the Legislature to take any action,” ruled the court.Despite the ruling suggesting their fears are overblown, opponents to Amendment 13 are still not satisfied.“Animal rights leaders are in a panic,” claimed Sunshine State News columnist Marrion P Hammer in an op-ed on Tuesday. But it fell short of analysts’ expectations of 9 percent climb in earnings. But it fell short of analysts’ expectations of 9 percent climb in earnings. Under a quirk of Florida gambling law, they are mandated to offer a certain quota of races in order maintain their gaming licenses.But greyhound racing has been in decline for years and, in many cases, it is unprofitable. Parx Casino wants to bring gambling to the Pennsylvania town of Shippensburg. The comoany’s shares fell 2.6 percent on the news before recovering slightly.lake tahoe casino rooms