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

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.
Yes

C*nt is certainly not a gynecological term. It is a hateful slur, usually hurled at women when the person saying such a thing cannot think of a proper reply or is just too lazy to formulate an adult and well thought out counter argument.
Yes

With all due respect, this is nothing new. A judge who makes decisions about families, who can't come out of his self-imposed closet, is too full of drama in his own life to make balanced decisions. If he is using his sexual preferences to garner sympathy, today is perfect. However, it is not earth-shattering news to find out our society has bigots and racists. One has to understand that jumping on the victimhood wagon nowadays is looked at as more whining, because nobody is offering up anything to bring people together....just crying about being mistreated. Life is hard, and then we die.
Yes