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

[Q]: This mistake by Stewart goes to poor judgement and more attention to style than substance. His speech made a valid point about helping people in appropriate ways where they live, but he just couldn't resist repeating the story about fires and disappearing pets (perhaps not even true). I agree that Stewart is not qualified for any higher office, and possibly would not even be in the public eye if he were not part of one of the powerful families in the area.
[A]: No

[Q]: Fifteen dollars an hour of minimum wage is coming to Alaska. Then I'll LMAO when all the naysayers who like to bash people on welfare for not working and laying on their lazy butt. Haha
[A]: Yes

[Q]: I already had that, and I've read a lot of it. Regulations protecting the public from abuses is not the same thing as directing insurance companies to design plans intent on squeezing out every last dime of profit they can by providing poor coverage via tricks with the deductibles and max out-of-pocket, severely limited networks, and jacked up prices. Those choices were purely the insurance companies' in their efforts to retain their previous level of profits.
[A]:
No