Categorize the comment on the basis of obscenity. If the comment is obscene output Yes, otherwise output No.

Ex Input:
Whoever gets elected President this year is going to have very little credibility. This election looks like a half a dozen adolescents fighting in the sand box and throwing sand in each others faces. The immaturity displayed in this election cycle is abhorrent. Americans are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats, slinging anything they can get their hands on at each other, because nobody wants to share any chocolate milk with anybody else. DISGRACEFUL!!

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
Here's the rebuttal: Krugman is a player for the democrats political establishment to believe otherwise is foolishness. When the RG as with many liberal newspapers don't want to appear as the lone ranger they run a Krugman kind of column. His column isn't about Trump, it's all about getting Hillary elected. Like most democrats you don't see it anymore then the next tool. The Clintons are among the top 1%, the insider political establishment and they intend to stay there no matter what or who they use. Independents like myself see it plainly for it is, a few Master Gardeners the 1% [the Clintons] have a shed full of foolish tools willing to be used. It all boils down to Forrest Gump's story.... "stupid is as stupid does". The really question is: So what does Hillary's moral and mental character have to offer the nation I know the answer do you?

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
He cleared the tree's so women couldn't be pulled in there and assaulted and so drug users couldn't hide in there using drugs. By thinning tree's police could drive by and monitor the park. Liberals fought him over this. Even gardeners vowed to boycott . Liberals and tree hugger's felt a few trees and personal freedom mattered a hundred times more than public safety. Had he sent the police in liberals would have protested that too.

Ex Output:
No