I would imagine that there are some Republican Party women who have better educations and less children. However, it seems that the nexus of Republican and conservative evangelical Christian would lead to women with lives like Palin. I think the conservative evangelicals realize that the best chance of growing or perhaps just not losing numbers is to have lots of children. Some of them are bound to remain in the fold. As for education, going to most of the better schools would influence many of the these sorts of Christians to modify their beliefs or even become secular.
By the way, I don't think that Sarah Palin was or is great looking. Maybe for Alaska she might be. That state has only about 750,000 residents. Also the way she moves looks very artificial, like a stepford wife. I don't find that sexy at all. On Sep 4, 8:13 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does the Republican Party generally have less qualified woman than the > democratic party? > > Hillary Clinton: highly educated; one child; career oriented; loads of > high level political experience; ok looking; etc. > > vs > > Sarah Palin: not highly educated; lots of kids; no high level > political experience; very sexy (MILF?) > > Sarah is the epitome of the ideal Christian barefoot, pregnant, > competent enough to be cute but not competent enough to be a threat, > hot mamma woman while Hillary is the very competent, ok looking, > driven, one child career woman. Is there something to this > steretype? > > Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
