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.

[EX Q]: Comment: Burt, when I read or hear about these complaints I can't help but notice that those individuals are either paranoid, incompetent or both. Which is it with you?
[EX A]: Non-obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: Gee.. don't know about that.. The article was quite sarcastic, but then suppose that is what comedy is all about..

Though, this topic was not about a CBC comedy series... this is a serious issue for both sides, but then that is another Canadian perspective.

Further, there seems, as well, to be much larger issues which are at play globally concerning this religion; it seems to have a number of jihadist terror organizations that are associated with it -- that right there could be the poisonous fly in the ointment ; clearer communication from all facets of the Muslim World needs to be spoken to that reality, including an explanatory resonance of reason concerning of this non-integration with 'Infidels and Jews'..

There are a number of issues that are 'fluffed-off' which is a darn good reason why 'martyrdom' is not what is needed here by Islam -- a good solid sit-down integrated respectful discussion with all the players is.. both Male & Female.. with or without the religious sartorial.
[EX A]: Obscene

[EX Q]: Comment: Why did you ignorantly say the Constitution lacks a provision without reading the Constitution before commenting?

Yes there is something in the Constitution that says the federal government must build and maintain an interstate highway system. It's in the Postal Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 7, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

Too bad you're too lazy to make the effort, especially citing "only 17 pages long."

You also imply that if Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it's okay to pass more of them. That defeats the purpose of the Constitution and a federal government with powers that are "few and defined."

As for your other ignorant and incoherent statement, if Congress can "only" do what the Constitution specifically says then limited government, state sovereignty and a Constitution that serves its correct purpose. If we don't have a Congess to pass laws, who else would they be passed?

Try reviewing your comments before posting.
[EX A]:
Non-obscene