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

Why do universities and colleges need to make voter registration information available? I thought everybody was getting registered with their driver license. Besides, college is too late; most people are old enough to vote before they leave high school.

We also don't need an awareness month for anything. But this legislature has long preferred symbolism over substance in its quest to look like it's doing something.
No

The fact that some children get a poor education is indisputable -- that goes for homeschooled and public schooled kids. What checks and balances could actually prevent this? Public schools have gone to more and more and more standardized tests (most AK homeschoolers aren't independent and also take these) and attempts to legislate that everyone score well. How well does that work? As for homeschoolers, you could add more paperwork. Some states do. Someone willing to hide their kids in the basement is probably cool with fudging or skipping the paperwork. Internet forums abound with instructions on how to get through paperwork hoops. Do we send inspectors to every home? Whose standards do they use? "Checks and Balances" is a good idea, truly, but only if we think through what checks are effective, practical, and don't cause more harm than they prevent. Ideas?
No

Guestsquared:  It's really too bad you can't manage to discuss an issue without inserting one or more personal insults.  Again, may I suggest disagreeing with you on this issue or any other does make a person, ipso facto, "ill-informed." I could reply with a like comment and we could waste time and energy exchanging insults.  I'm not interested in doing that. 

 We know, although you and the others who support this law will never acknowledge it,  that it was specifically written to "discourage" panhandling by punishing anyone who donats to panhandlers from a car.   This ban, of course, eliminates the primary source of contributions to panhandlers. It's designed to give Springfield panhandlers the "bum's rush", while hopefully passing the test of its Constitutionality.  It may be supported by the Courts, it may not be.  As I've repeatedly said, that is the Courts' responsibility.  We'll likely get to see how it "plays out."

Yes