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

Q: This goes way beyond Alaskan politics.  A good economist and political advisor could have seen the plummet in oil prices due to impending world events.
Alaska wouldn't be the first state or country to entice others to come for the resources and share in the wealth.  The problem is, if Alaska didn't modify its taxation structure with big oil, the jobs you all are talking about that might be leaving, would already be gone.  Something to consider.  States cannot force big companies to take the risk if there isn't a big reward.  Like others, perhaps we need to look to consumerism, diversification and incremental changes as our solution instead of relying on the oil money chasm.   
The price of oil will return - then what will the rewards become, and for how long? 
If anything this was a good kick in the left and right butt cheeks of the same congressional unit, looking toward the future of Alaska.  
But this us vs. them bipartisan crap will only alienate each other, and dangerously so.

A: Yes
****
Q: Line item veto, baby!  Every pet project in Chenault and Meyer's districts. And every committee chair's. And definitely the LIO. Bring the pain home to these spineless politicians. Spank em.

A: Yes
****
Q: You're going to try and make the argument 'if' you were Jewish???.
Look up the definition ,if you don't know it.
Your comment was anti-Semitic anyway you want to twist it, whether you're Jewish or not.
And you're not, hypothetical's don't give it validity,so don't play that angle.

You just answered your own question, that disregards the rest of your diatribe.
You said ' it's shameful practicing eugenics 'regardless of his being Jewish'.
There you go.
 The issue of whether eugenics is bad or not is another issue. 
But what difference does it make if he's Jewish or not?
Why mention it???
The issue of religious belief towards eugenics didn't come up in the article.
Religion wasn't a concern to Schnitzer. 
That is what makes it anti-Semitic, any way you try and twist it around.
That he is Jewish had nothing to do with the topic/issue.
You threw it in there. You're an anti-semite (and you're not Jewish, that analogy is irrelevant. There you go. You just put your foot in your mouth.

A:
Yes
****