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

[Q]: So we encourage people who only bring in a small amount of jobs instead of a business that brings in a large amount of jobs? Intel and Nike have create a lot of high paying jobs west of Portland.
[A]: No


[Q]: No one is looking for marijuana to solve homelessness. You'd blame marijuana for stubbing your toe.
[A]: No


[Q]: I agree with the writer's assessment of the sad state of current affairs.

Politics is a bloodsport.

Alaska Governor Bill Walker won with the support of the general population. He promoted a fiscal plan that fairly spread the pain of the fiscal crisis.  He wrote it in pencil. He solicited input.  He marched it around the state.  He got broad public support.  The cornerstone of his plan is fairness.  I know this first hand; I spoke to him about it myself.

Then, the Body, which created the fiscal mess, comes back with SB128- putting the fiscal burden on every man, woman, and CHILD in the state. PFD reform is not a good stand alone answer. The public will not abide a PFD raid; perceived or real!

To make matters worse, the Governor applauds the enemy when he needs to go right back for support to his strongest constituency, the general public and demand a better fiscal plan.

This constitutes a sad political strategy to shift the blame from the GOP, to the governor.

Paybacks are a bitch
[A]:
Yes