Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: The post said  I do not trust " PP about caring for women's rights". Spin. It's all canned heat. When you remove authority from parents to teach children your families accepted behavior then that void is filled with someone else's idea of what is accepted. That as we see kids losing their compass and follow idiotic ways of Hollywood.

A: Yes
****
Q: Regarding your Fred Stewart story, you need to ask yourself how certain you are before you print a story that absolutely destroys the candidacy of someone who has served his community well.   Do you really know Fred's relationship with his ex-wife -- no you don't.   Do you know if she is telling the truth when you quote her -- no you don't.   Does this one incident of disagreement and physical confrontation with his daughter disqualify Fred?   Is there more to the story -- a young woman stuck between a feuding Mother and Father and choosing her Mother -- in a not so surprising situation?  Is the Grant High School student's story reflective of the whole context and therefore should be used.   As someone who has edited hundreds of WW stories, I would say that this is tabloid journalism at its worst.   
If I were Terry Bean, Jordan Schnitzer, Jefferson Smith, Eileen Brady, or Fred Stewart, I would be thinking about the private lives and motivations of Mark Zusman and Nigel Jaquiss.

A: No
****
Q: I guess it is decided then. Democrats are worse than racists and bigots...

Sorry dude you logic not mine

A:
No
****