Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: Oh just Tulsi being a Hindu on the mainland, but secretive about her religious affiliations at home again. Seems like Sikhs are still having a rough time of it if they they're protesting Modi's visit. You know Sikhs, the turban wearing people often mistaken for Muslims in the US, and discriminated against and beat-up?

However, glad to see congressional reception committee's statement did not mention Muslim terrorists. Appreciated. Maybe Tulsi's changed, but change is in the blood of opportunists.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: That's the thing about legislation...if there are concerns about the constitutionality of it, it's best to let it die. The fact that Dunleavy was this enthusiastic to push this potentially unconstitutional bill speaks to his incompetence. I know he has worked in education, so it's a little weird how out of touch he is with some of the realities of...well, reality, I guess.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: We can agree it's greed, but I think it's greed on the consumers part. People go to Walmart for only one reason, low prices. If Walmart raised their price people would go somewhere else. Same with gas stations, most are franchises and make next to nothing, but the average consumer will go some place else if the price of gas is $.01/gallon difference. The American consumer could care less what employers are paying as long as they don't have to pay anymore and instead they blame the big bad companies. Most of us in the middle of our career have a retirement, and that retirement is invented in these same companies, when was the last time you switched out of a 401K fund because they owned a company with low labor costs.
[EX A]:
No