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.

Comment: Nice try
Obama and Clinton  killed millions in the middle east too
China has 13 trillion in real estate debt
duh
Non-obscene

Comment: Denver is a shit hole city it stinks it smells and you can thank the FUCKING scum shit holes from California.the FUCKING scum libtards they Fuck up everything they touch !!! Can't drive thru Denver with out smelling that crap it stinks and a skunk smells better and that stupid FUCKING  dickenlooper who thinks he is smart hebone dumb POS the helped Fuck IP Colorado just like iscumbo ducked up America
Obscene

Comment: Yes, I was responding to your comment, which defended Bolcon, who has repeatedly said that the Church hates women.  And I went on to say that her accusation was scandalous.  I did not attribute the accusation to you, or even imply that you had made it.  

I don;t question anyone's constitutional right to say what they want.  I do question their right under Canon Law law to tell such scandalous lies against the Church.   Get the difference, prof?  (You're getting worse with every thought.)  

I also question the stability of a woman who belongs to a Church that she says hates women.  It's like a black man wanting to join the Klan.

You say, "I don't have the time to do mind-reading. . . ."  But that's exactly what you took the time to do --- and not very well --- with your unfounded comments regarding what I know about Canon Law and the Woman Priests' movement.  Now put down that bong.

Non-obscene