you can't take 'freaks' seriously, no matter what idiotic institutional imprimatur they hide behind ('WOMEN'S STUDIES PROFESSOR', OMGZ! SO SERIOUS!).

these people are marginal, their mentality is marginal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4047407&forum_id=2#36585699)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4047407&forum_id=2#36585750)

"Every now and then in life you're treated to a teachable moment. I saw the comments made by Dr Julie Novkov and thought, does she really think that? Why? Because I know Dr Novkov and I doubt she would say them about me personally- even though I voted for Trump. More importantly Julie is really was one of these nicest people you'll ever meet. She sat on my dissertation committee; I actually wrote my dissertation prospectus on the Tea Party Movement while taking her Qualitative Methods class and she couldn't have been more supportive. She was nothing but helpful to me during my all my studies at SUNY Albany. She asked me to attend a political science convention and to contribute as a panelist on the Pedagogy of Constitutional Law panel she chaired. I received an A in every class I took I took with her, including the American Federalism class mentioned in this article, and she demanded a lot of her students. She never once exhibited any bias towards my political beliefs whatsoever, and believe me I never hid my conservatism- I debated vigorously in every class I took. So, the teachable moment for me is that if I saw her comments in the abstract I might attack her the way she's being savaged on the Foxnews page- and even by some of my friends here on Facebook who have actually posted about this article. I personally think what she said is unfounded stereotyping of the people SHE fears- and that her assertions amount to nothing more than neo-Marxist drivel masquerading as academic opinion; stuff that goes unchallenged in the halls of the Ivory Tower. But Julie is not an abstraction and reading the ugly things said about her not only bother me, they give me pause that maybe sometimes we need to step back before we go all in guns a blazing against those with whom we disagree. And possibly making unfounded hyperbolic statements as well."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4047407&forum_id=2#36586025)

I personally think what she said is unfounded stereotyping of the people SHE fears- and that her assertions amount to nothing more than neo-Marxist drivel masquerading as academic opinion; stuff that goes unchallenged in the halls of the Ivory Tower.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4047407&forum_id=2#36586039)

he would be an OUTSTANDING poaster.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4047407&forum_id=2#36586045)

what was the thesis? the tea party thing was interesting, but ultimately a story of utter failure. it was spiritually dead by the time marco rubio became the first "tea party senator" in november 2010.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4047407&forum_id=2#36587187)