2007-03-27 18:24:41 · 26 answers · asked by Constitution Party for President 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Here's what she is pretty of:
pretty evil
pretty sinister
pretty power mad
pretty hateful
pretty hateful of loyal and proud Americans
pretty hateful of our military
pretty well against good education
pretty anti-American
pretty anti-Constitution and Bill of Rights
pretty pro-communist
pretty perverted and degenerate
pretty murderous
pretty ugly
pretty sinful
pretty much the liar
pretty dangerous to freedom
pretty conniving
pretty awful
pretty dangerous for America
pretty cheating
pretty underhanded
pretty lowlife
pretty awful
pretty disrespecful to others
pretty undeserving of respect, honor, title or adulation
pretty shameless and dishonorable
pretty ashamed of bill
pretty full of dirty tricks
pretty vengeful
pretty grudgeful
pretty much a tool of Hell and a Satan worshiper
pertty inexperienced at doing good things for anybody but her
And I seriously hope and pray, pretty unelectable
And pretty and most likely to be the Third Incarnation of the Anti-Christ as predicted by Nostradamus
2007-03-27 19:35:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Pretty does not describe Hillary, she is a stunningly beautiful woman with a natural glow and uses no makeup. Some women will use face paint to cover up something, Hillary would never do that. She will use lip gloss for special occasions.
2007-03-28 03:01:20 · answer #2 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hellary Clinton couldn't get enough of screwing up this country when her whackjob husband was getting his jollies off - but as for whether or not she's pretty enough, not in my book. My wife makes a better candidate for president (even though she'd never run) - she's prettier, she's smarter, and she puts the issue of the war on terrorism before people whining about universal health care and global warming.
2007-03-28 03:08:17 · answer #3 · answered by c.grinnell 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why should that matter in the race for the most powerful political position in the free world! Oh, I forget, you liberals go on your "feelings" and not substance.
She had done NOTHING but give excuses and blaming others for the mess her sleazy husband has got us into from his selling of long range missile technology to the North Koreans, running tail in Mogadishu and doing nothing when the Twin Towers were attacked the first time in 1993, the bombing of the USS Cole and multiple terrorist attacks on foreign embassies in Africa.
THIS IS THE PERSON YOU WANT TO LEAD! All she has done is talk retreat all her life!
2007-03-28 04:10:00 · answer #4 · answered by Serpico 13 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we all went by looks to choose a president, John Edwards would have beaten Kerry and Bush by a landslide in 2004. Sen. Clinton isn't particularly pretty, but I'd say she's cuter than John McCain or Giuliani!
2007-03-28 01:31:28 · answer #5 · answered by gone 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't really take a candidate's looks into consideration. Personally, I'd rather be disemboweled by ravenous wolves than vote for Hillary.
2007-03-28 01:34:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
How ignorant.. Appearences do NOT matter. Look at the first female british prime minister- Thatcher, urgh, she was so hideous she made me want to throw up.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/20/margaret_thatcher_narrowweb__300x400,0.jpg
2007-03-28 01:38:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What an offensive question...
Almost as good as the one that blamed the Republican party for 9/11.
2007-03-28 03:06:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do looks have to do with the position and title? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
2007-03-28 02:22:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you serious? Is a platter full of elephant feces tasty enough to make a meal? Absolutely not. No amount of plastic surgery and airbrushing could make that political whore look like anything more than a demon robot.
2007-03-28 01:44:02 · answer #10 · answered by 180 changes 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋