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

Input: Consider Input: That's an interesting take. I don't know if I'd be for or against that but it's worth pondering. But it is worth remembering in the quest for statehood and crafting of the Constitution, the 101 million acres the state received and the sub surface mineral rights were negotiated and fought for. Hence, this owner state concept is what has given us the oil wealth.

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: I don't begrudge anyone who makes a good salary in whatever field they work in...even if its much higher than mine. I also sympathize with anyone that looses their job, whether they be a government employee or oil industry worker. 

Then there is the comment from the conservative which goes something like: If oil industry workers get laid off then all state workers should have their pay cut or loose their jobs altogether because I hate government employees and want them to suffer. Real classy those conservatives are. 

If the conservative thinks government employment is so lucrative, he or she had ample opportunity to obtain one of those "high paying, awesome benefits" jobs. The fact they never did is their problem. Instead the rag-a-colic conservative does the bidding of the 1%ers by attacking other middle class Americans and thus demonstrating they are too ignorant to know who they should be mad at. The result is Donald Trump.

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: It is in the Constitution.  If they pay you 'reasonable market value' the 5th Amendment says it's fine.  

The latest US Supreme Court decision justifies a City taking your land even if they just sell it to another business so the City can get more tax revenue from it.


Output: No