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

[EX Q]: They were actually a very nice couple in over their head with a misbehaving dog they didn't know how to train. I know this because I actually spoke to them and had a conversation instead of just peeing my pants in fear and blasting away at everything that moved around me.

I didn't even feel the need to draw my bear spray actually.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Riversong, please cite the SCOTUS ruling you believe most supports your claim that the federal government has the right to own more than half of the land in the State of Oregon? 

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That plainly establishes a requirement for indisputable explicitness in the Constitution regarding federal rights. If there is a question at all, the tie — the uncertainty — MUST go in favor of "the States respectively, or to the people," NOT the federal government.

We now have a dead man and several imprisoned people because they dared to ask a reasonable Constitutional question regarding their rights and States rights, and their reasonable question has not been answered by the government. 

How many more dead people do you require before you will do the work necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: So there we have it.  
It's the position of the industry, (advocated by their sock-puppets in the legislature) that AK's fiscal needs are a threat to their tax gift.  Thank you Rebecca, for making it so very clear.

Strip funding for all govt service, however necessary, so that the industry can extract AK's resource wealth, for their benefit alone.  And our crooked, bought off legislature obediently goes along.  Counter to AK's constitution, and the oath they've sworn, to uphold the same.
[EX A]:
No