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

[Q]: This goes way beyond Alaskan politics.  A good economist and political advisor could have seen the plummet in oil prices due to impending world events.
Alaska wouldn't be the first state or country to entice others to come for the resources and share in the wealth.  The problem is, if Alaska didn't modify its taxation structure with big oil, the jobs you all are talking about that might be leaving, would already be gone.  Something to consider.  States cannot force big companies to take the risk if there isn't a big reward.  Like others, perhaps we need to look to consumerism, diversification and incremental changes as our solution instead of relying on the oil money chasm.   
The price of oil will return - then what will the rewards become, and for how long? 
If anything this was a good kick in the left and right butt cheeks of the same congressional unit, looking toward the future of Alaska.  
But this us vs. them bipartisan crap will only alienate each other, and dangerously so.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: Clinton just HAD to have sex with Ms Lewinski?  Then, Clinton just HAD to swear on his good name to tell the truth and then lie to you, right to your face?  
His actions have made him a fair target.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: The decision was made to ban smoking and drones in Eugene parks, yet it continues in spades at Amazon Park ,  Skinner Butte and especially Alton Baker.  To boot, lawmakers want to give smoker's " a 3 month white glove treatment for 'education '  "   That's infuriating for those of us who frequently exercise in our parks and routinely encounter/ breathe in second- hand smoke.  This law is a huge joke, it will NEVER be enforced, and smokers will continue to have the unopposed the upper hand and run amuck,  smoking to their heart's content.
[A]:
Yes