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

[Q]: Why not? Do we need more funding for enforcement? Perhaps licensing could bring in some extra revenue to hire police to enforce violations committed by ALL AGES of bicyclists. After all, it's for the safety and well-being of all.

And the Oregon rules do specify safety equipment requirements, too. For example: 
"•	Brakes must be powerful enough to let you easily bring your bicycle to a stop. You should be able to easily reach the brake levers. . . .
•	Lights are required by law when riding after dark. You or your bicycle must have a white light visible at least 500 feet to the front, and a red light or reflector visible at least 600 feet to the rear. THESE ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. More powerful lights will make you more visible to others, and help you see road hazards. A rear light is more visible than a reflector. Front white reflectors are not visible to motorists entering from a side street and DO NOT MEET LEGAL LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS." (My emphases)
[A]: No


[Q]: We need to also substantially reduce the number of state employees in line with revenue.  Sacrifice is when you get a call not to come back to the Slope because your rig has been laid down
[A]: No


[Q]: Given your so obvious observation and the implication that an insensible engineer did the wrong thing, maybe you can answer the question I posed to Domestic....
[A]:
No