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: "It does seem a little hypocritical for Dogwood to be complaining about Kinder Morgan playing a role in the B.C. election through its donations to the BC Liberals, when it is receiving money from the United States to fight for causes aligned with interests there. "
In one case, foreign interests donate money to advocacy groups.
In the other, foreign interests donate money to a political party whose members currently form the provincial government. 
Not even remotely equivalent, Gary, and tf. hardly hypocritical of Dogwood to complain about it.
[A]: Non-obscene


[Q]: Comment: "Did he know the consequences? I am more than sure, he did."

I'm pretty sure that punk in TX who stole beer from a store, got drunk, and murdered four people with his stolen dad's SUV also knew of the consequences. He likely also figured he would get probation because he is White and rich.
[A]: Non-obscene


[Q]: Comment: He EXPLICITLY SAID the sorts of limits you are proposing were unconstitutional.   But you keep thinking that if you repeat your lies enough they will become true.
[A]:
Non-obscene