...if you do not answer, then I will have to provide an answer for you…

What you mean, of course, is that you will post another lie.

I am quite aware of what you will do. You really don’t know any other way to construct an ‘argument’.

When did you stop beating your wife?

There is nothing insane about asking you why you made the choice to lie. You can answer or not, as you choose. Either way, we learn something about you.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Just because you ask the same, utterly insane question that has nothing to do with anything that I’m remotely interested in, why would you assume I would answer it? Perhaps for the same reason that you’re refusing to answer my question.

If your arguments are so flimsy that you have to support them with blatant lies, why should you be believed about anything?

You are being used here for exactly one purpose, Ogre: to demonstrate that it is not possible to conduct a reasoned, rational debate with those whose first choice is to lie about what others have said.

I am intrigued by your uncanny ability to look into my mind and determine what thoughts my brain has despite my explicitly telling you differently.

I don’t have to look into your mind to know you are lying, Ogre.

I have only to compare what you wrote to what the editorial really said.

Third time asked, and I’ll bet you’ll run away from the question a third time, too: If your arguments are so flimsy that you have to support them with blatant lies, why should you be believed about anything?

Now can you please tell me next week’s lottery numbers—but then you’d also need to purchase the lottery tickets for me, because according to you, I would not be able to choose the numbers that were even in my mind.

Please, do tell me what other thoughts and actions are coming from my mind that I don’t even know about!

You truncated the quote because quoting the entire sentence would have thrown doubt on your claim that the editorial favored having the government ”[force] manufacturers to make less-efficient and more expensive cars”. You couldn’t afford to let the concepts of lowered pollutant emissions and fuel efficiency become linked in your reader’s mind. Hence, the lie by omission.

The question remains: If your arguments are so flimsy that you have to support them with blatant lies, why should you be believed about anything?

That’s why it wasn’t quoted—it wasn’t relavent at all!

False. Your excuse is a transparent sham. You yourself made efficiency relevant to the discussion:

So in the twisted world of this group of socialists, when government requires and forces manufacturers to make less-efficient and more expensive cars, the consumer has more choices.

You miss the point entirely, Ogre. You lied about what the editorial said because it did not fit your predetermined conclusion that fuel-efficient cars are some sort of “socialist” plot.

If your arguments are so flimsy that you have to support them with blatant lies, why should you be believed about anything?

I don’t care one bit about how fuel efficient cars are, nor if more fuel efficient cars have more or less emissions—makes no difference to me. I just want to have options without the government forcing me to spend more money.

And I was pointing out the morons who claim that by government reducing the options for consumers that it somehow gives the consumer MORE choices!