You're clearly resorting to hyperbole because a normal argument wouldn't work
They're exaggerations of very real complaints.
Ergo there is no one religion which has a right to set teaching guidelines that contradict established science to support a religious view.
What are you arguing here? That the complaint is invalid? Because that's my point. Your original argument suggested that because the opinion came from the taxpayer, it was prima facie valid.
For the fourth time since the 50's. Is it dumb as hell? Yes, our teeth are worse than the national average, but the tax payers run the municipal water supply so ultimately it's up to them.
And, as is the point of this entire thread, it's also okay to say it's dumb as hell.
I realize you're trying to be clever with this, but if you were a scientist actively arguing that global warming wasn't real because of a single outlying datapoint you would deserve to be removed from NOAA
Read it again. I'm not arguing that a single NOAA scientist believes that. I'm arguing that a subset of their employers do.
instead what we have been doing is defunding them so that the actual scientists who work there can't report on global warming. Largely republican congress critters behind this, but no less deplorable.
I don't understand. How can it be deplorable if it's popular with taxpayers?
What do all of these have in common? Tax payers exercising their rights.
Show me anywhere where I suggested taxpayers don't have the right to voice any opinion they so desire. That opinion is subject to criticism, though.
For the past 5 years in Utah death's caused by police officers have outpaced gun violence, child abuse, and drug abuse deaths.
How many of those are a direct result of "militarization", as opposed to being shot with standard-issue service pistols?
At what point are citizens allowed to say maybe we need to look at how we are using and allowing violence in the police force, and that potentially a switch to military tactics, which are LESS RESTRICTIVE than the rules of engagement our actual military uses in occupied countries, are a compounding factor.
"Allowed" to say it? We've been through that.
When should citizens be taken seriously when they say it? When they can show a strong correlation between DoD-sourced equipment and use of excessive force, controlling for every other correlating factor.