OK, I'm not trying to make the case that the poll rating means that Bush is doing poorly.  I'm making the case that he's done so poorly that the poll rating is higher than it ought to be.  However, to get the facts straight, here's a list of reputable polls and where Bush's rating has fallen during his time in office.  They universally say that about 40% approve of the job he's doing . . . significantly less than the numbers you guys quoted.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Where did you get your numbers?

I'm not trying to make a deal about the poll, more about the fact that people are blindly supporting Bush inspite of these catastrophic failures.  However, if you are interested in making an argument against polls of this nature you should study them a little further.  Reputable polls, unlike the one you quoted, do things to eliminate known biases like that.  They'll take polls of a representative cross section of the country, not mostly Democrats or mostly Republicans.  Everyone who has responded has done so by name calling and silly claims that what I posted is not true.  If you continue to get your news from liars who seek to intentionally mislead you for the sake of their own political agenda, of course you'll be ignorant of what's really going on.

I've heard people try to use the Bible to justify evil things.  To me, we are called to follow Jesus' example.  I think the question, "What would Jesus do?" is a wonderful question to ask when pondering these things.  Jesus taught and overarching lifestyle of love God and love thy neighbor.  Jesus was even against violence to protect Himself.

If you're calling me a liar, I'm offended and I'd really like for you to speak to each of the exact points in my post - those you think are true and those that you think are false and why you believe differently.

Who are these 38%?

I'm curious; who still thinks President Bush and the Republicans are doing a good job with the extremely unbalanced level of power they hold . . . leading all three branches of the government? Why do you not think that they're doing awful?

Let's just look at this governments history . . . first major issue where we look to the Federal Govt: September 11th, 2001. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis brutally attacked . . . wait I mean Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda brutally attacked us. We know that bringing this man to justice is a top priority - more than four years later Bin Laden is still at large. We realize that our disaster preparedness could be better; they made some changes - great, change is always good, except when it makes things worse like we saw in the response to Katrina. So shortly after September 11th, the citizens of this great nation align themselves behind the President - giving him the opportunity to lead the country to greatness and accomplish much more than say Clinton did with a divided country and Congress. Of course this unity was squandered since today we're more divided than ever. He misled us into a war in Iraq - spending billions of dollars to destroy a country posing little threat to us and then billions more to try to rebuild and fight off terrorists that this action was effective in growing. Also this and other irresponsible spending habits (unbalanced tax cuts for the wealthy), squandered a budget surplus to put us in unprecedented deficits. More recently he returned to the White House early from one of his many vacations to push for Teri Schiavo to have her feeding tube reinserted against her and her husband's will, but failed to take such quick or strong action to feed the suffering people of New Orleans after an awful disaster that he was warned about. Of course he was warned about several of his other failings before making those poor decisions as well.

One of the few things he hasn't screwed up is developing a group of supporters, apparently 38%, who will defend him with greater fervor than they would the many innocent people of this world who have suffered unnecessarily due to his misjudgments.

The world is evolving and slavery and servitude has changed and been thought of differently by each time, culture, and location.  The overarching philosophy of Christ was to love your neighbor.  To me that is as clear a declaration against slavery as we need.  People who wish to pull passages of the Bible outside of this larger context are missing the point.

I understand why so many have turned away from the mainstream media, because there is a lot of truth to the accussation that they haven't kept the American people informed.  Like in the report I posted earlier, so many Americans have been fooled into thinking that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11, and the media has done an ill job of alleviating that myth.

Many have also turned to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh so that they can hear what they want to hear.  These outlets, as shown in the study, lead to a more misinformed population than any of the other new sources.  If you'd like I can delineate a number of times these people have lied to the public to push an agenda, but I doubt you'll want to hear that since most of their audience are interested in hearing what they want to hear, true or not . . . and they know it.

Although the facts do indeed show that the Bush administration is doing a poor job and amounts to negative press for them, reporting these facts does not indicate that the press is biased.  Although the media has covered the casualty count you mentioned in Iraq (probably because the people from the hometowns of these fallen soldiers would be very interested) : actually just over 2,000 for the 'coalition' (about 1900 for the USA), the media has hardly mentioned the civilian Iraqi casualties - estimated to be about 25,000.  Would that count as a bias in favor of the war, the conservative agenda i.e. not liberal ?

And finally, as far as gathering for protests being treasonous, let me remind you that the US Constitution's Bill of Rights specifically calls for a freedom for people to assemble to protest grievances like these.  But again the conservative political agenda seeks to weaken this and other rights through accussations of lack of patriotism, treason, and even support of the enemy.  You'll find this infectious propaganda readily in these alternative news sources.  The mainstream media undoubtedly has unintentional biases (not all to the left as the conservatives need you to believe), but these alternate sources are intentionally propagating an agenda . . . not a smart place to get your news if you seek the truth.

Commentary from citizens on how the country should be governed is not treason, it's democracy.

My question was:

Please show me - from any main media outlet – an actual news story that states or even implies the statement “Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11th” - and please give me the statement in context.

 
You answered by posting long PDF file with a list of alleged poll questions/answers.  My request was plain: "and please give me the statement in context".  That is something you are obviously unable to do.

Sorry about the "long PDF", I didn't realize you were so averse to reading.  The reason I didn't attempt to fulfill your request exactly like you asked is that it's irrelevant in the context of our discussion.  I did not say that the media was lying to people and actually saying that Iraq was responsibile for the 9/11 attacks (though some instance of this may exist, especially outside the mainstream media).  What my point was: the media made a minimal, if any, effort to inform the public that these widely held beliefs that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks was indeed false.  What the "long PDF" goes on to show is that you're more likely to believe these falsehoods if you primarily get your news from certain sources and less likely from others.  I might recommend PBS or reading the paper for your news, since people who got most of their news from PBS or newspapers were among the least confused about these facts.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

At the above link you can find the study that talks about the misconceptions I was referring to.  The media's responsibility is to inform the public . . . essential to a functioning democracy.  If you're not well informed, how can you possibly make a sound decision when you vote?  But, again I don't think the mainstream media does it intentionally . . . that's why it's a bias and not outright propaganda like you'll find from FNC and Rush Limbaugh and the like, the media allows people to believe these false facts thinking that a story debunking this would be "unpatriotic".  Allowing the conservative agenda to make war to be propagated among those who would otherwise be against the war.

The liberal bias in the media is a myth used by conservatives as a part of political games.  The conservative shock jocks dominate the radio and there is an entire news network dedicated to conservative propaganda.  The mainstream networks have stories biased one way or another, but even here on average the advantage is with the conservatives.  For example, so many Americans who watched the news fell into the trap of believing that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11th . . . which, in case you didn't know, is totally false.  Instead of debunking these sort of political lies, the media allowed this to go on.

What are your thoughts about Hurricane Katrina and what is the best thing those of us who were unaffected can do?

What do you think about the government's response?

a topic that deepens the divide with every passing reply.

Deepens the divide between what?

Why do you think Republicans have not banned abortion?

Republicans hold a majority in all three branches of government.

Sounds like most of you who answered vote Republican, but it also looks like most of you missed the second part of the question, "and why?"

What are the key issues that you use to choose who to vote for?  Economic, Social, International, or some other kind of policies?
Specific issues such as Taxes, Abortion, or War?
Just as simple as what do you think is important and why?