For one, HookEm, your methods are ridiculous. Your formula is this:
Throw something outrageous out. Let's see... "OBAMA WANTS TO KILL YOUR BABY!!"
Then, when someone points out how ridiculous you've become, you simply say something along the lines of "prove me wrong" or "source?"
It makes it so, that it's no fun to talk about politics with you. You're not really all there, when it comes to these debates. You're trying too hard, to find something that's not there, half the time. And the other half, you're glossing over things, in order to make your point more outrageously.
For one, the first reference you posted, was Wiki. ANYBODY can edit stuff on Wiki. I can go on there, and say something about John McCain wanting to off JC, and if no one contests it, it posts it up there. Being that's the first reference you posted, why would I even consider your other references? You've already shown that you'll believe anything, as long as it seems like something that'll bash whoever is against your man.
So, to answer you, aceman, I don't enjoy responding with arguments. (Although it is fun to fling the same stupid logic HookEm uses, back at him. It's ironic that when I do it, I'm "deteriorating" but when he does it, it's... er... logical?) But why would I waste a logical response on fantastical cut-and-paste posts?