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

We also need to reduce the current members of the Alaska house and senate, to save the house and senate:  Vote anti-incumbent 2016, 2018, 2020...
No

The stats you reference include public sector wages, where as the article names private sector wages. "% higher than" clearly means just that. If the article had said "100% higher than", would you have said "So the average annual income is about $45,000. 100 percent of 45,000 is about $45,000".
No

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.

Yes