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

Example Input: Rachael, you're the one who may actually be off a bit and appear to be confusing the PF  (Permanent Fund)  and the PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend. The difference is clear. The Fund itself was/is indeed truly meant to be a rainy-day fund to help support the State when the oil is inevitably gone. A moment of wondrous political clarity and foresight often not seen in our system.  The Dividend (PFD) was intended, at least in part, as a means to keep the pubic involved and monitoring the fund so that later politicians wouldn't figure out a way to get to the principle with no one to say otherwise. In retrospect it has worked just like that though maybe a little better than is healthy. With skin in the game Alaskans decry any attempt to raid the fund as it will have direct impact on them. This is the intended effect. On the downside it has created a bit of an unhealthy entitlement mentality but in general it's worked well. We still have an obligation to future generations.
Example Output: No

Example Input: I bet I could save a whole bunch of money if I privatized the management of the Marine Highways System.   I might even hire some managers who gave a damn what it cost to run the Blue Canoes.
Example Output: No

Example Input: With so many bad attitudes toward smaller oil companies regurgitating false talking points it is no wonder Alaska's oil production has dropped from over 2 million to 500,000 on the North Slope and oil also had a massive decline fron 270,000 barrels per day to 15,000 in the Cook Inlet. 

Keep up the insults and harsh attitudes and see what that gets! 

Soon no one will produce enough because of poor treatment like this attack on Hilcorp by the AOGCC and people like Estun!
Example Output:
No