In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: disagree or agree. Classify the comment as disagree if it is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement, whether healthy or unhealthy. The disagreement can be due to toxic content (for example, disrespect, identity attack, insult, and threat), controversial content, misunderstandings, or conflicting opinions. Classify the comment as agree otherwise.

[Q]: Comment: Let me get this correct, family visits Afganistan. Family comprised at the time of aCanadian man and his pregnant US wife. Backpacking into one of the most dangerous counties in the world and get kipnapped. Perhaps they thought the Afgan medical system was superior to ours so they ventured over there for the delivery of their child.
Why do people never cease to amaze me. I wonder how much they are going to sue the Canadian government for them not responding in a more aggresive nature to get them out......bloody hell.
[A]: Agree

[Q]: Comment: So let me understand this correctly. Not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident but failed refugee claimant who left Canada; proceeded to areas of the world that are known to be zones associated with extremist activities; was captured by and detained by American forces; recently read about the Khadr settlement; and now wants a piece of our tax dollars in the sum of $50 million?

Even if the Canadian government told them everything about this guy, it doesn't matter. He is conferred no rights under our constitution or our laws. He is a failed refugee claimants who engaged in activities against the US armed forces and was detained by the US government.

Sue the Americans and stay out of Canada. You can't mooch off our government. We already told you that you were not welcome here.
[A]: Agree

[Q]: Comment: Do you realize that, regardless of your point of view, Gov. Walker actually DID something? The Legislature has only itself to blame ... and I choose to blame it, and not the governor, whose hand was forced by legislators who could have / should have produced "something" in this session and the first "overtime."

Furthermore, he did something that was not politically self-serving. He may incur the wrath of voters for this and either be recalled (silly) or not re-elected. He knows that, and is willing to stand up for what he believes is a solution (or a step in that direction). How many of our legislators are willing to put principle over re-election?

I don't have to like the governor's solution to admire him for not doing what is politically expedient, but, rather, to put his reputation on the line for something he believes in.
[A]:
Agree