Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jwkniska
that was one of the sticking points when they first put in the boats here and the casinos knew that from the beginning.
The horse tracks deserve their rightful portion, as it was agreed to when the casinos were built.
|
In 2006, supposedly to "address the negative impact that riverboat gaming has had" on Illinois horse racing, the legislature -- racing interests...
Why would the racing industry in Illinois take this route if there was a prior agreement? The Supreme Court will send it back. They wont take the case if there is a major flaw like a prior agreement that was not looked at. Will does not mention this... He clearly states that racing interests were using a negative impact arguement, I dont see where it says anything about a prior agreement.
Conflicting rulings by state courts demonstrate that that question is chaotically unsettled.
Apparently the agreement, whatever it is or was, has some type of flaw.
Or Will has missed something big time.
He usually does his homework.
I have always liked the guy despite the fact
that he has no clue how comfy my blue jeans
are. Even with my
massive groin area. (Damn.
That was destined for the 3 words that describe
me thread)
Cat is out of the bag.
The Mighty Python has left his cage.
I apologize for my juvenile behavior.