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

[Q]: He shot five times to make sure it was dead. It is not like a movie, where someone shoots once, the shootee falls, and the screen darkens. If it ran at him, he may have had to shoot several times  to make sure it stopped coming. Sometimes adrenaline can make an animal keep going after it has been shot. Better and more humane to make sure, even if it takes several shots. And in the article, it says he has never used it for self-defense in the 25 years he's been carrying a firearm. So this is not a crazy person shooting all and sundry. Context is important. This is Alaska, people. If there is a danger to a kid, there are enough homesteaders around to fix it if the responsible party won't.
[A]: No


[Q]: I think this article chooses to ignore the more common sense complaints made by those of us who don't like the way this city is currently being developed.  We can accept that some houses will be torn down and replaced with apartments in the name of density, but too often these numbers are used to justify wasteful and short-sighted building practices.  For instance, in the case of the Eastmoreland sequoia lots (a story I imagine developers and sympathizers of this article scoffed at), the neighborhood offered a very viable plan to build two smaller houses on the property without clearcutting the land, along with compensation for preserving the trees.  Such houses would have been more affordable, and saved a valuable public resource: big trees.  This option was rejected because the developer didn't have kit houses of the right size and shape available.  A little creativity, common sense, and smarts could solve both the issue of density and destruction of the things we like about PDX.
[A]: No


[Q]: she's a perfect example as to why liberalism is a mental illness.
[A]:
Yes