Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: Something subtle in the coverage here that has concerned our campaign, is that the RG's efforts to appear "fair," with candidate's excerpted statements that serve the RG's need for a storyline, haven't been forthcoming with much detail on the candidate's differences.  My campaign is dependent on public awareness of my desire to light the SUB fibre network to get Springfield's residents inexpensive/superfast internet, and my intent to aggressively intervene in the funding crisis in the schools. Yet, with the cancellation of all 7 proposed candidate forums, even the RG article 4-18 decrying "lack of debate" has little of substance that'd distinguish me or any opposition here, nor hold accountable an incumbent's record.  People deserve to not just 'hear' there are issues, they deserve to vote on the actual  issues themselves.  This sort of "psuedo-fairness" compromises a journalistic standard and uncritically assumes that all positions are equal without any elements accountable to facts.

A: No
****
Q: I'm calling B.S. First off, I've worked at some very nice restaurants in the area, and no one is pulling down six figures. Secondly, if you want to make waiter money instead of cook money -  get a job as a waiter. Just because I feel like I work hard, doesn't mean that I think I should be paid as much as the G.M. A living wage for all willing to work hard - absolutely, but equal pay for every job is just a pipe dream.

A: No
****
Q: It is a real poor idea to kill people; sometimes it comes back to bite you in the butt. People get rather irate when this happens. The person is gone, never to return, and those who love an know the deceased are at an extreme loss. Intimate partner violence is the worst; it is a bad present which keeps on giving. If you are involved in this, please select another activity.

A:
Yes
****