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

Well, not exactly. The tax is meant to offset public health costs. The tax revenue rises and falls with the degree of consumption. If the tax reduces consumption, it's been successful, and the public health costs are decreased.
No

Boozer: tompaine2 makes a very good point here. Often the "rich and successful" believe they're really special.....some would use the phrase "Hot S@#$" . The MW's on-line dictionary reads.. "Simple Definition of hubris : a great or foolish amount of pride or confidence" You take two parts Anger, combine them with one part Hubris, and it often produces really "stupid" actions.
Yes