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

[Q]: I echo christa_m's remark below - I am most interested in the answer to #7. With due respect to Mr. Jaquiss, I am perplexed about the placement of this item so far down the list. I also can't fathom these individuals as "protesters" - that describes peaceful marchers objecting to violent deaths at the hands of police officers, not an armed militia. 

These armed domestic terrorists were allowed to overtake control of land protected by our national government for the safety of our wildlife without consequence for 3 weeks; a number of them still remain unfettered in their unlawful, threatening behavior. While in no way do I wish official intervention had led to any loss of life, I most assuredly have far more concern for their being held accountable than I do for the details of their arrest. Is it not obvious why they'd be transferred to Portland? Does it matter if they were drawn away from the refuge under false pretense? I do not understand the tone or intention of this piece.
[A]: No


[Q]: Heeere's Ernie! Geez man, this is the second place I've heard you complain that your racist posts were canned. Here's an idea for a graduate of  the 'Harvard of high schools', start your own blog where you can jerk-off all day to an admiring bog - all one of them.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: And if it turns out that the drug you bought in Mexico was baking soda, you don't have any right to sue, gringo.   The US bears the price of the research and development and all the litigation costs, then the rest of the World that doesn't do the R&D and doesn't have the US' avaricious plaintiffs' bar gets the benefit.

You buy a drug in Mexico, you're buying from the guy who paid the last best bribe to the guy who prints the downloaded label.
[A]:
Yes