Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: You recall wrong. He converted in 1964, while he didn't get the notice for draft until 1966-67. And no, he was not a coward.

A: No
****
Q: The parroted false and inaccurate  mantra that hunters pay for conservation is propaganda steering the imbalance of wildlife management in Alaska and the U.S. 
Here is the revenue breakdown to illuminate truth:
In Alaska, non hunters contribute the lions share of 65% of the Wildlife Conservation funding.   Hunters contribute a minority 35% of this budget.  General funds, federal funds and Pittman Robertson funds are not derived by hunters alone.  No, they are the minority of all these funding sources.  Wildlife conservation is paid by all citizens equally...the majority of citizens do not hunt but they are Alaskan and US citizens paying the majority of the funding to the Wildlife Conservation Division budget.

A: Yes
****
Q: And Art Chance, the issuing of pink slips is actually what the governor and the liberals want. Suppose the legislature approves a budget and the governor vetoes the entire bill. He will accuse the legislator of shutting down the govt, just like last year. Can the majority see beyond their noses? Suggest the majority come up with a solution on O&G tax credits by upping the minority by $10 million more in cuts. Then vote and let the chips fall where the may. Then cut the budget to get the UGF to no more than $4.5 billion. Let the governor veto that and hold him accountable for issuing pink slips.

A:
No
****