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

[EX Q]: But the thing is...she couldn't have said anything else. If you are a musher and you say anything bad about the Iditarod, they can ban you. It's the new gag order on mushers, which I think is incredibly newsworthy. She couldn't say that she wasn't "satisfied with how the ITC was handling it," in fact she was specifically obligated to say that she WAS satisfied, because she's not allowed to say anything bad. Medred decided that this wasn't OK and went ahead with the story, a decision I think was right. 

I guess he could have left her name out of it, but perhaps the info was already out there and telling the story with no name attached would have been weird.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: 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.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: First off, it's not a theory: a vote not cast for Hillary is a vote for Trump. Period.
Hillary is a strong supporter of health care: she brought the issue to the fore years ago where it remained.
Women's rights: she's been a champion of equal pay and other issues (Planned Parenthood) for decades.
African-Americans overwhelmingly support her. Do you know why?
Minimum wage: $12. Not as high as Bern, but a large improvement.
Gun control: a decades' long supporter of toughening laws.
Immigration: supporter of Obama.
Education: platform calls for free community college; debt-free public university attendance through $2500/year credit.
So, I don't know what you mean about her progressive ideas and credentials. Not as far as Bern, right, but a MASSIVE, MASSIVE difference from Trump.
Please, read this and learn a bit about her: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hillary-clinton-believe-candidate-stands-10-issues/
[EX A]:
No