TASK DEFINITION: Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.
PROBLEM: Ranger, Again thanks for citing the law as it is intended to be a just and good law. "No Exclusive Right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State." Please read this first sentence of the law again Mr. Granger. Now we get to where the ex gov and buddies convoluted themselves rights to our fish. "This section does not restrict the power of the State to limit entry into any fishery for the purpose of resource conservation,..." This means the State can limit entry into a fishery for resource management meaning NO one can fish or ALL can fish. It is greedy and corrupt to out currant and future Alaskans. My great grand kids should be able to fish. And not have to pay or suck up to the owner of the fish that are really public domain.

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: your logic and understanding are fatally flawed. 

you fail to grasp the true concept of the word "patriot" 

nobody is going to force you into a homosexual marriage against your will. that is the extent of your "rights" on the subject.

nobody wants your church to marry homosexuals. they want your church to cease the un-American practice of imposing your will on others for no other reason than that you can and always have. 

again... "patriotism", you're doing it wrong!

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: That's a silly response. First, Copernicus illustrated the movement of the planets around the sun. Not the sun around the planet. Second, what human intervention occurs in relation to the sun? We have a direct influence on the earth's environment as we interact with it every moment of every day. Don't think that's the case with the sun. Third, going back to the OP's post and using that to rif on a favorite conservative position - As it is prudent to assume that all 'others' are looking to rob, kill, or rape us it is thus only prudent to carry a gun everywhere, why is it not prudent in the face of our possible (though, really the data clearly points to our complicity in accelerating climate change) involvement in accelerating climate change to take actions to prevent or combat, much like feeling the need to carry a weapon to prevent or combat a theoretical attack?

SOLUTION:
Yes