Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: According to Wikipedia, Ted Cruz is a Southern Baptist, not a Conservative Baptist.
[A]: No


[Q]: I'm disturbed the the phrase "...Bernie supporters and the threat they pose to the Democratic unity bridge....."  I understand that being overworked and over saturated with the politics involved in a revolution can take its toll, but I think that blaming it on Bernie supporters (as if they are any different than Hillary supporters) is unfair. It smacks of favoritism, which pretty much shoots down any "unity" argument.

Politics is no longer about unwavering loyalty to The Party, and absolute, unquestioning support of The One favorite within that party. It's an "all bets are off" revolt against the trap that is a two party system. It can be quite an adjustment to accept that no one is required to support a candidate just because of party affiliation. 

Yes, it's hard to deal with. No, it's not supposed to be "civil."  It's revolution.  Revolutions are always disruptive and painful. At least we aren't facing down tanks in the street.
[A]: No


[Q]: Bill Boyd says that people are confused about rail.  He also says that population along the route is already "above $600,000."  Who's confused?  Rail assumes that 15,000 people will walk to it.  That's a joke because there is very little housing along the rail line.  Mufi said that rail will be impossible to stop once it gets far enough along.  In my opinion, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which included the 15,000 projection, was the first step.  Too much of it was fabricated.  It was designed just to get the project started.
[A]:
No