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

[EX Q]: Wow What a story...I'm serious. Great journalism. From my point of view the only issue with Vic was whether he could fairly judge a dispute between a man and a woman. Particularly a straight man. I could care less about his sexual preferences.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: your logic and understanding are fatally flawed. 

you fail to grasp the true concept of the word "patriot" 

nobody is going to force you into a homosexual marriage against your will. that is the extent of your "rights" on the subject.

nobody wants your church to marry homosexuals. they want your church to cease the un-American practice of imposing your will on others for no other reason than that you can and always have. 

again... "patriotism", you're doing it wrong!
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Oh I don't know - granted DOC is past awful, and a gross embarrassment, but have you looked at the Dept of Public Safety recently?  Probably not, because DoPS is even more tightly sealed against Public examination and accountability that DOC has been.  It's 'internal culture' of dysfunction, misconduct, and lack of accountability goes back decades, and may well be the original road map for DOC's dysfunction and the Dept of Law's maneuvers to assist DOC cover up.
[EX A]:
No