In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: 100% duty on milk products from US.   Softwood and dairy are not covered under NAFTA.  For 30 years the US has been playing this game with softwood.   Time to hit back.    100% tariff on dairy will have the US farmers up in arms and Trump will back down.  He is a bully and he is dumb.  He will back down rather quickly.

Output: Non-obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: I guess you'd call me a liberal because I tend to favor governmental intervention when "private" behaviors pose serious risks to others.  In this case, however, I swing to the Right.  Assuming that Mr. Jarlstrom's primary "transgression" was to write that he knew something about "engineering" (a generic term), the Board's crusade against him is inane., to say the least.  That would be like me (a retired political scientist) being fined for  illegally "practicing law" because I teach a course in mediation as an effective legal tool.  The case against Mr. Jarlstrom appears to be utter nonsense.  Perhaps one should attack Board members for their lack of proper qualifications.

Output: Non-obscene


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Your comment is horse crap.


Output: Obscene