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

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: "cost would be minimal in the scheme of things" If you sell your car and you only get 2 per cent more than it is worth; (Worth $1,000 and you get $1,020) and you have to pay 2.5% tax on the sale that means you have to pay $1,025. So you now have to pay more than your profit was. Multiply that so the $1,000 is really $1 million dollars of a small construction project, and you might understand the effect of this tax. ($20,000 profit; $25,000 tax. Knife River will have to pay $5,000 more than you actually made.)

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: Gun control will do little or nothing to prevent terrorism and other crime, but it will adversely affect law-abiding citizens who seek to defend themselves from those criminals. Paris and Brussels have strict gun control. And Chicago, gun murder capital of the USA, has strict gun control. If making guns illegal would cause criminals to stop using guns, then we could stop murder by simply make it illegal to murder people. Oh, wait, I guess we already have that law on the books. Remember, criminals, by definition, don't care about obeying laws, so piling on more laws will not change the behavior of criminals.

SOLUTION:
No