Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: Alexander Durban--You have so much to eat you can REFUSE to eat animal protein out of some misguided, maudlin delusion of "love" for other species.  But you turn a cold-shoulder of indifference to millions of crying, starving human babies whose families would give anything they have or do anything they were asked to get just a little milk to assuage the screaming hunger in their children's bellies because you're all weepy over COWS???

I'll tell you what I told the last "animal liberation" imbecile whose whiny tripe received undue attention on these pages: we are omnivores.  Come tell one of our big brownies to "honor motherhood" by not eating a moose calf or ripping roe out of a mama salmon's belly.  Go 'head.  Natural selection is always on the lookout for the weak and stupid--it'll cure all your ills, and the space, oxygen and resources wasted on simpletons like you can go to a more deserving member of our species.

A: Yes
****
Q: Illegals and food stamp dependent thugs with fear of having to get a job

A: Yes
****
Q: Motley, I wasn't defending the current system, I was merely explaining how it works. Anyone can apply for a license to start a liquor store and I'm sure the state would happily accept if all criteria were met and there were enough potential to support one. One thing our state does very well is find ways to extort more and more money out of us under the guise of helping schools, public services and whatever else the can conjure.
As much as I hate the state having sole control over liquor sales, the ballot measure proposed will be far worse in terms of selection and pricing.
I don't believe the state will accept losing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue which means they are either going to over tax liquor, as our friends in Washington have experienced, or they will find a way to spread it out by increasing taxes across the board.

A:
No
****