Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: Boozer:  I'm guessing the Courts will eventually decide if this ban is a "traffic safety matter" or a blatant attempt to circumvent the Constitutional Protections provided by the First Amendment.  

I've yet to read of a single incident of a traffic accident being caused by someone passing spare change to a panhandler.  I've yet to read of a single incident of a panhandler being struck by a vehicle.

If you follow the "traffic safety" logic, Springfield should make it completely illegal for pedestrians to cross main street.  Why don't you tally the number killed crossing that street and compare it to the number of panhandlers struck by vehicles.

The proposed ban is, indeed, that "end run" I suggest.  I don't expect the City or any supporters of the ban to acknowledge this (although a few posters on this site have done so).   I don't expect the Police Chief to acknowledge it.  I don't expect the City Council to acknowledge it.  I don't expect Springfield's attorneys to acknowledge it

A: No
****
Q: Sorry Old Soul, I disagree and reality is not on the side of your argument. Women ARE the only people who can reproduce, men being only reproductive. The law is contrived and based on outmoded ideas including the institution of marriage--a throwback to the days of women being unable to own property, work outside the home, etc. 
It seems to me that with the inviolable right to abortion (currently it is a right that is routinely violated, but the US is obviously a backward country) comes the obligation for women to acknowledge that when they choose to allow a pregnancy to come to term and produce a child, they bear the sole responsibility for raising the child. Should they choose to allow another person involvement in the raising of the child, the biological father--whoever--that is their prerogative. To the extent the biological father is involved I would assume that it is contingent upon his active participation. There could be circumstances where the father parents on his own.

A: No
****
Q: The credits helped Armstrong oil and gas and many others have found billions and billions of  barrels of new oil.

Oil prices will come back so why is the Governor and others taking away Permanent funds from all Alaskans every year? 

Why are they making all Alaskans pay income taxes every year? 

Why tax so many things Alaskans enjoy when the state has been given so much free oil money that is now flowing over in excess at $ 8,200,000,000,000.00 Alaska petrodollars!

A:
No
****