Come on we love solving riddles, for this is the hobby for philosophers.
Am i alive?
does wal*mart treat their employees like crap?
This statement is false.
what is false about it?
do you want to get a job at wal*mart? If not, why not?
a rhetorical one? oh wait that’s the one that has no answer… 
I have a question. What does this question mean? What questions do have questions? I feel so left out.
Here’s a statement that has to be true: “I don’t always tell the truth.”
no rhetorical questions have answers…
“is the pope catholic?”
“…yes.”
“shut up, it was a rhetorical question.”
After reading all of this. It made me laugh and it also brought me some unknown insights. Like I am dwelling with the Tao, defiding logic, as Alan Watts describe the Tao.
For that reason alone I love contradition. Perhaps that is the reason others finds me, the philosopher, hard to understand.
What is one question that has no question ?
Meta-linguistical submarine questions, like “What the hell ?”.
just left out the end; “is going on?” its a figure of speech used to display wonder at the present moment
Yes but even that can be sketchy.
Even if you intentionally lie, you still can’t be sure you had the truth to begin with, to lie about.
They say language coresponds with events and objects in the world, so that anything “said” is said with an explicit intention of representing the world; nothing can be said about nothing, so everything said, and everything “thought,” as thinking is the act of concieving “words,” involves something.
So language is not noumenal, its not necessary, because to suspect that humans beings have always existed and spoken a language is harder to accept than supposing that the world and its objects has always existed beyond and before human language.
Did the objects in the world suddenly come into existence by being thought up or named? I would think not. I am a hardcore empiricist (I’ve defected recently).
The objective noun is the basis for all following adjective description; an “event” is an object in a scenario-- “it is beautiful”-- the object must exist in order to be described, the description, although not a representation of the object is “true,” but it cannot be epistemological, which is to say, you can “lie” and say its ugly, but also you couldn’t determine the truth state of “beautiful” by itself. The truth state of the existence of the object described is always true and you could never lie about it, neither intentionally or accidentally. A lie and a truth are metaphysical effects of empirical impressions which are objective, and I need not identify them because I could be wrong. But this would beg the question; wrong about what? The objective state of the world, that’s what.
So in “telling the truth,” we get caught up in descriptions that are adjective and valuable, and we set up boundaries between telling the truth and lying…we would say “the beautiful horse is over there” if the truth was “the ugly horse is over here,” if we wanted to lie. But what, in the first place, is “beautiful” and “there”?
This is our own web, because beautiful and there do not exist as objective truth states, but can quite certainly be lied about, while telling the truth and lying are metaphysical events and cannot happen objectively.
“Error is not an argument against a things existence, but rather a condition of it,” the good moustache said.
But wait! How do you know what is error and what is not, Mr. Fritz?
It is simpler than that.
what is one question that has no question mark?
I am.
Truth.
Are self-referencial paradox’ questions that dont have question?? Oh wait, that makes me think more…Arg! 
And here we see the kicker…
If all post boxes are red, and I am red, does that make me a post box? Technically yes, obviously no. So no real answer. 
Once you feel a truth you would never question it even if you want you will get only prooves