Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

There is a very simple solution that would allow non-consumptive users to contribute to state sponsored wildlife education, conservation, and wildlife viewing programs and that is to have a voluntary checkoff on the PFD application. If this were in place, one could contribute as much as one wants from one's PFD. 

But there is a catch, as a non-consumptive user - I would want equal representation on the Board of Game as opposed to the second class status that non-consumptive users currently are relegated to. It is for this reason that while the hunting community may complain about non-hunters not contributing financially, in reality, this is exactly what they want as it helps them to maintain their political monopoly on fish and wildlife resources. 

During a time when the state is facing a serious budget crunch, such a proposal as the above, only makes sense to help fund the above programs regardless of opposition from the hunting community.
No

You are off topic. The Super Delegates can vote however they choose to regardless of what the vote in the primaries is. I will say it again - the current corrupt two party system is destroying the USA.
Yes

The majority reminds me of Dick Dastardly from the Wacky Races cartoon. He can so easy win the race, but so hell bent on cheating everyone else, He lose the race every time.
Drat, Double Drat, Triple Drat!!!

Yes