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.

Comment: Democratic counterpart has not presented him with a list of specific demands and “needs to come to the table and talk.” What if your counterpart said,"DON'T BUY THAT DAMN GLASS BUILDING. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR RABBIT ASS MIND." What if he said that?
Obscene

Comment: You must be a renegade from a Donald Trump fact finding mission. IF ever I've read fake news, obfuscation and a lie, this is it.
Non-obscene

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.

Non-obscene