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

Q: He makes $200,000 a year working for Conoco-Phillips so we already know who he represents in the legislature. Plenty of men have earned sexual favors for buying a dinner costing a lot less than $100 bucks. So let's not argue about the power of paying for a nice dinner.

A: Yes
****
Q: I have learned a lot from this
Everybody suddenly is an expert on where lot lines are, whereas the day before they were not
Everybody must have been there because we have several thousand first hand accounts with expert dog behavior testimony
Everybody"s dog is perfect and never known to be aggressive even though police reports show otherwise
The shooter should receive death threats on facebook from internet tough guys who would never confront anybody in person
Obviously the shooter parked" in the dog owners yard" when was the last time somebody drove up in front of your house and pulled up on the grass?apparently these psychic witnesses saw all this
Labs are never aggressive!!  Guess what clueless dog owners. Dogs behave incredibly different absent owners. Get over it. 
All these silly comments convince me you dog experts are anything but that

A: Yes
****
Q: I'm sure.  I am also certain the most recent Supreme Court decision yesterday, invalidating the most recent efforts of the EPA to deal with carbon emissions, is a probably a bad idea - legally and public health wise.  I likely is going to be bad for my daughter's asthma, may put the drinking water in Springfield at risk, and have other unforeseen adverse consequences.  Hopefully diversity of opinion still has a place in our governance and in our label bound, talking point weighted media... as I would hazard to say that there are ways that "rights" under the constitution can also support what are generally considered to be 'liberal' causes as well as a wide range of differing political views.  Thanks for you comment.

A:
No
****