GM_Tood

I agree with you that both did involve the illicit acquisition of information. The decision to commute Manning is being denounced/criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, including current Sec of Def Carter.

Hillary/DNC - e-mails about media interactions, financial contributions, personal info on donors, campaign info. More than likely done by the Russians. Manning - Downloaded ~500000 documents related to the Iraq and Afgan engagements and over 250000 diplomatic pages. Within the pages of the diplomatic pages were names of foreign nationals that assisted in Military operations. I can only assume that since this information was made public, ISIS/bad guys/etc would use this info and take retribution on these individuals (though I do not believe that anyone has confirmed that any deaths were associated with his/her leaks) Some have also stated that these leaks were the catalyst behind the 'Arab Spring' in 2010. Yes, some of the information that was leaked showed some situations that many, including me, found rather disturbing done by US Military personnel. But a US citizen acquiring classified information and leaking it would be detrimental to the country, its military operations, and the forces used in those operations. What's the worst that could come out of the Hillary/DNC hack...maybe identity fraud? That's my two cents. I wasn't trying to be a dick about it, but I really don't see how these two situations are related unless a US citizen was found to be behind the DNC hacks.

I can't believe this question was actually typed out. smh This is the kind of response you get when someone A) Doesn't understand the question, B) Doesn't understand the answer, C) Can't explain it if neither A nor B are true. Do you know the difference between the type of information that was leaked? I assumed you did.

I can't believe this question was actually typed out. smh

Fear-mongering over NATO all of the sudden disbanding, or the US pulling out. As someone who served as a part of NATO forces during the Bosnia conflict I am fully aware of the effect that NATO plays in the European theater. EDIT: And I am still a believer in NATO...as long as everyone in the 'Alliance' does its part.

Do you really think Estonia should just stand on its own when/if Russia invades? You think Belarus has the resources to pay its "fare share?" You seem unaware of how hard the former Soviet regions have worked to improve their plights since the collapse. They are still recovering. And when Ukraine decided it wanted to ally more with Europe, so they could improve their economy more, they were attacked and lost terrtory. That's going to happen more if NATO is weakened or destroyed, and it's going to be worse than losing a portion of territory. You do realize that Belarus and Ukraine are not members of NATO and would not be relevant to what I was talking about. Estonia currently meets the 2% defense spending goal established in 2014. I think the US 'could' manage relations via treaties/agreements 'if' NATO was to fold. The US would never just bail on Europe...though I suppose some of our fear mongering populace would disagree. But, I have never stated that NATO should fold, just that Nations contribute what they are supposed to.

I didn't say cut Europe loose. NATO is effectively now a protectorate system except we don't get tribute. That's not sustainable. We should continue NATO as long as the leaders of these nations bring us chests of Gold, lets go full Roman here--10 thousand thousand Drachma, and you shall have the protection of Rome.

IMO NATO is nothing more than a welfare program for Europe at the expense of the American tax payer...which allows for European politicians to dramatically expand their own welfare state to their citizens without having to spend a dime on their own national security. Trump is absolutely correct, the Europeans need to pay their fair share of their own defense.

Omaha Ice Stormageddon 2017

Don Lemon just spent 20 minutes interviewing security pundits implying the FBI is investigating, as well as giving overall credence to the situation by labeling the British source as "reliable". In our time TMZ and CNN have traded places on the legitimacy spectrum. sh#t is cray cray.

Good times, thx for running it Mav!

9-3 OSU, PSU, Wisc = L

I would argue this is *exactly* missing the point: I'd welcome anyone to try and defend a position that insists Trump will in fact run an empathetic administration devoted to carrying on America's lofty ideals and tradition of multiculturalism. Given that the man has made his political fortune out of casting and vilifying outsiders, I would guess that there won't be takers on this. (That such a notion could ever be confused for being "American"...) The more limited thesis presented -- "As long as the government isn't rounding up and deporting legal immigrants, such criticisms are unmerited" -- still deserves scrutiny. It's a stance that is tepid at best, if not hostile outright to affirming diversity. You're all welcome, too, to defend this as a reasonable position to stake out, and there we'd have to simply agree to disagree. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Nah...just tired of the Hollywood elite...like they think their words carry any more weight than yours or mine. I guess I am not in the same mind frame that the Gov't is going to be rounding up legal, documented, immigrants and shipping them back to their originating country. Does that make me naive? Though I wouldn't mind more football and UFC over some of the crap Hollywood has put out as of late.

'Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners and if you kick them all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts,' Streep said to loud applause. "outsiders and foreigners" are they documented? if so, then they shouldnt have a problem.

Meryl Streep is a db.

Clemson by 10

After the lasik is when I started getting the halos...was prob a year or so after surgery. I still do have them...and they arent that bad. Just annoying.

I had it done about 9ish years ago. Within a day or two I was 20/15 and 20/20 in each eye. My eye sight was horrible...over 20/200 if I remember correctly. The cost did include 3 or 4 follow up appts, and also any "adjustments" within a year. The only negative is the night time driving....I had the halos with lights. After 9 years I am probably ready for some reading glasses too. I would do it over again in a heartbeat.

I like em all. Scotch is what I really enjoy though...especially accompanied with a cigar. Glenlivet, Aberlour, and Macallan are my favorites. Bourbon? Try Four Roses or Bulleit as both are reasonably priced and imo really good. If you are in Omaha, keep an eye out for Spirit World, Copa Cabana, or Grane to do tastings for Bourbons or Scotch and give it a try. And to answer your question, read this: http://www.realmendrinkwhiskey.com/know-your-whiskey-the-difference-between-bourbon-and-scotch/