instruction:
Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.
question:
Her only accomplishment was marrying Bill?  What a sexist comment!  You ignore her law degree (from Yale no less), her work in that field, serving as a senator and as Secretary of State.  You don't have to like her but she does have accomplishments of her own.
answer:
No


question:
Motley, I wasn't defending the current system, I was merely explaining how it works. Anyone can apply for a license to start a liquor store and I'm sure the state would happily accept if all criteria were met and there were enough potential to support one. One thing our state does very well is find ways to extort more and more money out of us under the guise of helping schools, public services and whatever else the can conjure.
As much as I hate the state having sole control over liquor sales, the ballot measure proposed will be far worse in terms of selection and pricing.
I don't believe the state will accept losing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue which means they are either going to over tax liquor, as our friends in Washington have experienced, or they will find a way to spread it out by increasing taxes across the board.
answer:
No


question:
All of those are just as dangerous as drunk driving and should be treated comparably. Of course that brings us to the fact that Oregon doesn't take drunk driving seriously, which partly explains why we have double the national average of alcohol-related deaths.

Driving a motor vehicle isn't a game. It's a serious activity that can end lives if done poorly. We need to raise our game so that Americans don't have a fifty percent probability of being maimed by a motorist over the course of a lifetime. Unfortunately, we're going the other way in Oregon with highway deaths up by over a third over the past two years.

Are we stupid, or do we just not care about human life any more?
answer:

Yes