Repetition? I haven't seen you yet commit once to actually reading the text in its entirety. It is hard to repeat something you haven't yet said. I'm used to you moving the goal posts at will, which is why I am asking for a direct commitment from you beforehand to actually reading the full text.

I will read it with you, I will not read it for you. You haven't read it yet, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just might yet read it. If going through it word-for-word will make a difference I will do that, but I will not accept your "skimming" of it.

Either commit to reading it in its entirety, or just stop talking about it and stop pretending to be knowledgeable on it.

Just state it by name once is all. Acknowledge that the city - even though it rejected him mightily - exists. His snub of Milwaukee would be like President Lawnchair giving the state of the union and not mentioning any state south of the Mason-Dixon line. You know we would be talking secession (if not worse) if that happened.

Being as Walker just restructured the tax system to squeeze even more money out of the people who live in Milwaukee, he could at least be gracious enough to thank them for their contributions, even if he hates them deeply for not voting for him or supporting any of his ambitions.

Oh, I see. Your strange spin on collective bargaining has caused you to confuse it for unconquerable job security.

Funny, I can think of a certain embodiment of randian conservative thought who is driving a company straight into the shitter with no consequences and no chance of ever losing his job (or golden parachute).

Well, when a law is passed specifically to disband some unions, make it hard to form new ones, and reduce what few powers many existing ones still have, it is a pretty good step towards homicide (or union-cide, if you will).

No. They are sensible only for people who are above the median income. Everyone else was hurt by them, though some haven't realized it just yet.

Really? The largest police forces in our country are unionized, as are the largest fire departments. I haven't seen any of them mutiny. They generally just want some decent protection and realize they can do better bargaining together than against each other.

Wage suppression is not the answer. Wage suppression doesn't help anyone but those at the very top. Right-to-work laws have not produced better or more affordable products when used in manufacturing, it produces only slightly better returns for stockholders and top brass.

Be careful not to poke that critter. He's almost as hard to get rid of as syphilis but nowhere near as funny, good looking, or intelligent.

Only if we are going to start at the beginning and read every word. No "skimming", no other silliness. I don't think I can make you check your bias and hatred at the door before beginning it but if you will at least read every word that would be a huge improvement and we could have an actual discussion.

I want you to commit to going through the entire text, starting over from the beginning of it.

Maybe start with the very first speech he gave as governor , where he mentioned Milwaukee not once though poured praise on cities much smaller (and redder).

... a professional security agent who works for the government. If the shooter was letting as much lead fly as some have been saying, you would be delirious to think that an average Joe with a pistol would have been effective in this situation. We're not sure who the dead gunman is yet, but it seems quite likely he had a goal in mind.

Walker didn't save Wisconsin from anything. Their economy is not nearly as good as your conservative spin would like to paint it to be. Employment numbers haven't been that bad there in a very very long time. If anything Walker is good at driving a wedge between two Wisconsins - the rural (and in some cases suburban or exurban) Wisconsin and the urban Wisconsin. He literally goes out of his way to not even acknowledge the existence of the largest city in Wisconsin in his speeches.

If the people of Milwaukee turn out the vote, his goose is cooked. If his supporters can pull off a stealth voter suppression run (hey, it almost worked in Ohio a few times) then he might be able to keep the mansion for another 4 years.

I gave you a plan: start from page 1. Are you, or are you not, willing to start reading the text from its beginning? If you aren't willing to genuinely start reading the text from the start - rather than just "skimming" - then there is no purpose in going forward. I expect that if I treated the Bible or the Federalist Papers with such utter disregard you would not want to discuss them with me. While the Communist Manifesto is absolutely not my bible I don't see how you can possibly learn anything from it when you just randomly hop through it in your preferred method.

Are you, or are you not, willing to start reading it from the first word?

Certainly a possibility. It is a case of the bias of the current media, though. This kind of statement is on the same level as what got Howard Dean crucified by the media back in 2004, just of the opposite magnitude. If it had come from someone working for the democrats the media would already be screaming for their head and playing the funeral march for the candidate. Instead since it is a republican nobody cares.

Seems to be more true as time goes on.

Only if you will start over from page 1 and actually read it. If you are going to "skim it" instead and keep giving random soundbites of anger instead of reasoned criticisms then there is no point in trying.

So you didn't read my post at all then, did you?

Bash the boogey-man, why not? No need to think about the matter when someone has already told you who the demon is.

So that what can happen? You want to place people in power who will drive us even further to the right. Your side has been given >90% of what they have demanded of the federal government, and you bitch endlessly about the last 10% while the other side are taking it up the rear without lubrication.

No. You are inserting your beliefs here. Your beliefs have no basis in reality this time.

More importantly you have already admitted in multiple ways to having not actually read it. Why you insist on lying in the face of your own statements is not clear.

How can we have a dialogue on a text that you refuse to read? If I did the same about one of your blog posts you would respond the same way would you not?

You would then have a physical excuse for not reading it as you would be physically impeded from doing so. Now you have the text in front of you in a (presumably) readable fashion and are explicitly choosing not to read it.