Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: If you have no integrity with the publicly stated beliefs of your religious denomination, that's between you and God. You are a private citizen, believe as you wish. 

But, your fellow Conservative Baptist Imago Dei church-member, Jules Bailey, has put the integrity of his beliefs (or, more accurately, lack of integrity, if I'm following his waffling correctly), up for public scrutiny. 

People who choose to become paid public figures, must expect to be scrutinized as such. And, it's a bit naïve for an Evangelical Christian to run for public office, in Portland, and not expect to be held accountable for the history of his chosen religion, particularly the past 30 years here in Portland (OCA, Oregon Family Council, etc.)
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: I have a lot of British friends who are more involved in American politics than most Americans. So in exchange I confront them about the real heir to the British throne, the Australian man claiming to be Charles' and Camilla's love child from the '60s. He lives in Australia and has 9 kids. So all nine of his kids would also be in the succession for the throne! I think America should be ready to go to war on behalf of the rightful king of England!
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: This is too absurd to simply accept.  The hunting regulations in that area need to change now.  This is a real no-brainer.  What a disaster. Poor, poor management, to say the least!
[EX A]:
Yes