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

Q: Kill the PFD and end the welfare. No dividends in a broke economy.

A: Yes
****
Q: I'll repeat from my previous comment the quote from Jim Furnish, former supervisor on the Siuslaw National Forest and former deputy chief of the U.S. Forest Service;"The federal government ceased using forest herbicides after notoriously losing a landmark lawsuit over human health issues associated with miscarriages and birth defects....there is no longer any doubt that they (herbicides) are harmful to humans and the environment...the outcome is instructive to today's protracted struggle to ensure human health in the face of corporate greed."  In my opinion after 20 years of observing many of our county commissioners I believe they work for the wealthy logging industry at the expense of the people and wildlife. If Jay were truly concerned about low income folks he would make laws to protect them from toxins which could result in expensive medical costs and lost wages due to illnesses. Public servants should serve the public, not big campaign donors.

A: No
****
Q: The possible legal ramifications from Mr. Hammer's alleged actions have not been determined.  The evidence of those actions seems rather strong and acknowledging so is hardly a "personal attack."  The rifles were recoverd from a property owned and/or controlled by Mr. Hammer.  Just to clarify: a) rash verdict.......that's the responsibility of a judge or jury..to my knowledge, none has been reached b) accusations.....those were made first by the tenant, then by the legal authorities based on testimony from the tenant and evidence acquired via a Search Warrent and c) personal attack...I will gladly repeat that if Mr. Hammer is, indeed, guilty of the actions mentioned in this article,  it was really "stupid" for him to have taken the actions. If asked today, I'm guessing he would likely agree with me.

A:
No
****