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

Input: Consider Input: "Blindly supporting someone because of party affiliation..............skills".   She would be a disaster in the White House.

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: A root problem of how we deal with addiction is that we treat it as fundamentally criminal instead of medical. Sadly, maybe having a young, photogenic, non-minority woman as yet another victim of the 45 years-long War on Drugs™ mentality will further bring attention to how backwards and counterproductive we are as a society and polity in dealing with addiction and treatment. This politically-motivated and special-interest perpetuated “effort” needs to end and the massive resources spent on this miserable boondoggle need to be invested in intelligent and enlightened preventive and medical solutions from the 21st Century. Of course, in addition to the private prison corporations, prison guard unions, governmental recipients of asset forfeiture, etc., the Mexican cartels and everyone else profiting on the black market side will be quite displeased with decriminalization. Take a look at how Portugal has been handling this since 2000. My condolences to the Green family.

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: Muck, Dick Cheney and George W were oblivious to the expanding housing bubble. They were so surprised when it burst. Clinton initiated home loans to people who could not afford them, which fueled the housing boom. Bush-Cheney thought they were responsible for the booming economy. They spent huge money on crazy wars, expanded government (Patriot Act, Homeland Security,TSA) and could not see the corrupt housing loans causing the bubble. Worst presidency in our history. Worse than Obama's. Deficits definitely do matter.


Output: Yes