The worst thing I could come up with is their uniform looks like they're made by Adidas.

Crap....I just took your word that I was wrong. Just minor googling shows me that I was essentially right, and what you speak of happened near the end of total allied control of Germany. We've essentially had bases there since the end of the war.
WIKI-
In practice, each of the four occupying powers wielded government authority in their respective zones and carried out different policies toward the population and local and state governments there. A uniform administration of the western zones evolved, known first as the Bizone (the American and British zones merged as of 1 January 1947) and later the Trizone (after inclusion of the French zone). The complete breakdown of east-west allied cooperation and joint administration in Germany became clear with the Soviet imposition of the Berlin Blockade that was enforced from June 1948 to May 1949. The three western zones were merged to form the Federal Republic of Germany in May 1949, and the Soviets followed suit in October 1949 with the establishment of the German Democratic Republic (GDR).

In the west, the occupation continued until 5 May 1955, when the General Treaty (German: Deutschlandvertrag) entered into force. However, upon the creation of the Federal Republic in May 1949, the military governors were replaced by civilian high commissioners, whose powers lay somewhere between those of a governor and those of an ambassador. When the Deutschlandvertrag became law, the occupation ended, the western occupation zones ceased to exist, and the high commissioners were replaced by normal ambassadors. West Germany was also allowed to build a military, and the Bundeswehr, or Federal Defense Force, was established on 12 November 1955.

Will YOU stand corrected? ...or was this a misunderstanding of what I meant by 'why the bases are in Germany', because I do understand those reasons have changed over time, as you indicated...I was talking about the original reason we stationed American military there.

Um...accepting bribes is a federal felony....even if you don't stay bought.
Taking the bribe is not 'doing his job correctly'....it's a crime, even if he doesn't follow through afterwards.
WTF? Bill didn't offer any reciprocity for the BJ, did he?!? First I've heard that. What legislation was she promoting, or who got the presidential pardon?
I'm all for cops getting BJs daily before they start their shift, not a bad idea at all...but certainly not from those they stop, absolutely not with the promise they'll 'look the other way' about the crime...even if they follow through with the original charge regardless of the fact that they were just bought and paid for. EDIT: Also, not on the clock/the public's dime, not while in uniform, and not posted publicly.

If it were left to the moderates - and you are not one, you are the other extreme - then change would never happen, because no one would be angry enough. How far would the abuse have to go, how rife would it have to be, before you got angry enough to try and change it? During the height of racism in america, you would have wondered why the million man march was necessary given that you never had any problems on your traffic stops.

I have read comments from newt praising the actions of the police when they act in ways which deserve praise.

Yet you - you never seem to rule out that a beating is unacceptable. You always add the caveat "maybe he wasn't putting his hands behind his back," (or similar) but in the same breath claim that you've never been in that situation. Perhaps if you had, you would understand that the human survival instinct is not something that can be turned off when you are being attacked.

Do you honestly, even in your closeted, warped and twisted mind, think that you can kick and punch someone in the face UNTIL they put their hands behind their back? You are excusing them on the basis that they make an impossible demand and the demand is not met.

Your guarantee is worthless, on what authority do you make it!? You have a pathetically ignorant world view in which if it works for you, it works for everyone - damn the evidence, and damn those who it doesn't work for. If your traffic stops went without a hitch, then all these videos of psychopaths in uniform are outliers and don't need to be dealt with. You're an excuse maker and an apologist for violent, dangerous individuals who are given exceptional power which they abuse.

Unless some people get angry about it, nothing will change, because people like you will always find a justification for them, and that's more reason to get angry.

Ooo-Ooo! Thanks Sifty! Another patch for my cub scout uniform!

I think that's a West Jet airplane, I'm not sure, but the uniforms look familiar. I have yet to have a bad experience on WestJet. Also, it may need a Canada tag if it is. =)

There are plenty of people who believe all cops act this way. Read online comments and you will find them quite easily. And your statement that responsible people find ways of dealing with stress w/o losing it on occasion is simply naive. I'll bet you're the first to agree that PTSD is a real syndrome with soldiers. it's the same for cops. A lot of people deal with assholes you said. Well, cops deal with them, get puked on by them, see their blood and the chaos they create, slip in their piss and get their spit on their uniforms.

Newtboy posts all these videos but he'll tell you that he doesn't believe all cops act this way. He is rather like Mr. DeBlasio, who wants to say one thing out of one side of his mouth, then say something quite different out of the other side. He is no fan or admirer of the police, he creates this scenario that all cops are power hungry racists and you end up with dead cops because people with mental problems see this picture and extrapolate it to include all cops everywhere.

Who was the Uniform?

I had never heard of "thatguywithglasses" (and thank fucking goodness) before this, but after seeing this guy utter absolute bullshit while wearing my traditional nerd uniform I finally understand why idiots like "The Big Bang Theory".

This guy isn't a nerd, he's a awkward apologist who is stuck in his own, entirely unproductive world featuring whatever pop culture spectacle coupled with his shallow thoughts.

On the other hand, despite being a psycho hooker murderer, Mr. Plinkett is one of us.

Now I'm worried that when I'm in my 60s I'll want to murder a hooker. Ugh, pop culture confuses me.

Speaking from personal experience and while in uniform, I have gotten one death stare and innumerable positive comments from black folks who have said, have a nice day, have a safe day, etc.

I had one black guy who I was serving a summons on ask me if I was going to put him in a chokehold. I just ignored that statement and by the end of the conversation he said 'have a safe day, officer'. Because I treated him with respect.

But that's what most cops do.

Some inner-city cops don't put up with much shit from people, though, and they lose their perspective, but then they are dealing with far worse people on a daily basis.

People who believe that are mistaken.
As I've told you before, I had an instance where an officer misread my license plate and assumed my car was stolen, so he yanked me out of my car angrily and forcibly at gunpoint, throwing me to the ground and jumping on me, wrenching my arms back and handcuffing me as tight as humanly possible....while I did absolutely nothing but comply. When he finally figured out his mistake, he was insulting and threatening, telling me to not report it because he had my address. (And that's not the only inappropriate police activity I've been subjected to by police)
My feelings about how police act come from direct personal experience with them.
That is proof enough in my eyes that your statement is simply ridiculous. It's certainly looking like most people today think that no matter how you act, if you are targeted by police, you are in serious danger for your freedom and safety (guilty or not), and there's absolutely nothing you can do to avoid the assault. Today, only a small percentage of people think otherwise, and many of them either wear or wash a uniform (meaning are closely related to a cop).

Sad.
You are supposed to be the protectors of the public, but you seem to think it's proper to live in fear of and disgust with them.
I was taught, and it has held true, that the best way to win a fight is not to be in one. I have won many a 'fight' in my youth by being LESS violent than the person assaulting me, sometimes with words diffusing the situation, sometimes by simply avoiding their clumsy attacks and allowing them to hurt themselves. Escalating the violence is almost never the best option, just the simplest and most reactionary.
Those times I 'lost' a fight (only happened with my brother who was twice my size, unavoidable, and I couldn't talk down), I could have become more violent to 'win' and saved myself from discomfort and injury by stabbing him...that would have been inappropriate. To me, from your comments you would have knifed him, because winning is more important than anything else. That theory sucks ass, and I think you know it.
OK, if "all too many cops" is hyperbole, I'll say "nearly every cop on the force"...better? Both are true, both are terrible. Show me just 3 instances of cops going against other cops publicly and in court, and remaining cops. You can't. That's "All too many" to almost everyone that's not in uniform.

I have money laid down with friends that there's an after credits scene with a blue-faced, white-uniformed man standing on the bridge of a super star destroyer, accompanied by one or two obviously predatory cat or dog-like creatures.

You can call it 'personal belief', I call it educated guess work, because I've paid attention and most models were on the low side of reality because they don't include all factors

Try as I might, I just can't ignore this. Here's what the actual scientists at the IPCC themselves have to say in their Fifth Assessment Report on assessing climate models:

an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble
For reference the CMIP5 is the model data, and the HadCRUT is the instrumental real world observation. 111 out of 115 models significantly overestimate the last decade. AKA, the science says most models were on the high side.

Now, that is just the last 10 years, which is maybe evidence you can declare about expectations going forward. But lets be cautious before jumping to conclusions as the IPCC continues on later with this:

Over the 62-year period 1951–2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trends agree to within 0.02ºC per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period.

So the full scientific assessment of models is that they uniformly overestimated the last 15 years. However, over the longer term, they have very high confidence models trend accurately to observation.

As I said, if your personal belief is that models have consistently underestimated actual warming that's up to you. Just don't go spreading doubt about the actual science while sneering at others for doing exactly the same thing solely because they deny the science to follow a different world view than your own.