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

Jay Hammond was a friend. As a twenty-something and relatively new to Alaska, I was one of the first three people to join his campaign. Mike Whitehead, Dee Frankfourth and me. Diana Tillion lead me to that action from which I learned much and not just about Alaska politics. This is not new, I believe Jay mentioned this in his biography, but he told me more than once his greatest regret as Governor was not vetoing the income tax repeal. He did say that the votes were there to overturn a veto but it bugged him that he caved.
No

My 'commoner viewpoint'  believes that the Establishment of Religion Clause has been so perverted from the original intent of those who wrote it as to be nothing but a title.  At the time, Maryland had been established as a Catholic Colony, for one example.  That is what the framers were trying to prevent.  

Banning religious symbols such as the cross on Skinner's Butte as 'establishment of religion' is nonsense in my 'commoner viewpoint'.  

As a non-religious person, I can have no valid opinion on any religious belief. 

 Forcing my non-religious opinions on those who have them seems wrong to me, however.  When the government chooses a policy which directly attacks such a belief, it should only be as the only alternative; not just because the majority has the power to do so, in my opinion.

As an example, Islam requires female genital circumcision.  I believe that religious belief to be sufficiently perverse to be banned by our governments.  I see no alternative.
No

Why do you need to nuke civilians when you could negotiate surrender with Japan?

If Japanese men, women, children were prepared to fight and die street to street, house to house for the emperor, why did they surrender?

Is it US war strategy to murder civilians to demoralize enemy military?

Then are you justifying 9/11 as well?

No