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.

[Q]: Comment: Let us all freak-out about this, jump up and down and raise hell, blame Trudeau and the liberals, great opportunity to make noise. Let us make sure we do not look at the big picture why there are so many refugees in the world today. How many are Muslims? oh my god, things are bad. Blame Trudeau. Panic.
[A]: Non-obscene


[Q]: 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.
[A]: Non-obscene


[Q]: Comment: First of all when an Obama staffer asked Obama's chief of staff if he should contact the republican's for input Rahm Emanuel replied "F**k em we got the votes"
And  Boehner  tried but Obama couldn't keep a promise and kept moving the goal posts.  Obama was so bad that after essentially coming to an agreement with the debt ceiling and the budget with Boehner in a meeting at the WH.  By the time Boehner got back to his office Obama had left a message that he had changed his mind and wanted hundreds of billions more in spending.  
Just a few of the points in Bob Woodward's book.
[A]:
Obscene