From the administration's perspective, the word I would use to sum up our view is one of caution.
It's a little vague, and it's definitely not fair to not include casinos. I don't know all of the parameters (of the new law). The only rules I've heard have come from the news. We may lose a few patrons.
That revenue is in exchange for our potential well-being, our peace of mind and our property values.
The rate effects depend on who you are. Efficiency programs reach people in different ways.
I wouldn't expect the top leaders or the cardinals to be rushing to his defense.
This term may be the end of the Rehnquist Court era.
Even though it is a conservative court, it is no less activist.
We expect the forthcoming interim results to be poor in comparison to 2004.
We expect the forthcoming interim results to be poor in comparison to 2004, although it has to be said the vast majority of profits are made in the second half in the run-in to Christmas.
None of us are willing to take that risk. None of us are going to put our kids in a bedroom that's 70 feet away from something that might cause cancer or other problems.
We were a fairly smoky bar, and we may lose 10-20 percent of our business. However, there is the possibility that non-smokers may come out more.
For my health, it's great since I don't smoke, but even though I'm a non-smoker, I do not agree with the ban. We should have the opportunity to make that business decision for ourselves.
I am a nonsmoker. From a business point of view, I am a little torn.