regfootball

um, yeah, here too I guess!

JEWEL more than does it for me too.

catherine zeta jones was hot at one time.

goldie still looked great until about 3-4 years ago. jessica alba- yeah, good one. teri hatcher, even the fossil she is, looks great again.

CAN'T WE ALL SHARE?

i would 'ahem' DOUBLE that sentiment. she was BIG at the GOLDEN GLOBES this year, I hear. I wonder if she'll ever need anyone to rub oil all over her.

JENNIFER ANISTON definitely

ok, this is not meant to be an X-rated thread. but who do y'all think is a hot or handsome star that you wouldn't mind inspecting up close? If you had one (or two) chances to be up close and personal with a star, who would it be? C&G is always about equal time, so there is no limit as to whether its the strappin' men or the hot ladies. C'mon, who do you think is SMOKIN? I confess, I can't stop at one, so everyone else chip in too. What started this idea for me.....I saw a movie today with Claire Danes in it. I've always thought she was like WAY HOT. Damn she is fine. I would love to feed her grapes and watch the fan blow cool air all over her while we listen to some classical music. She is tall and slender and way smokin. OK, who else is on your list?

neither has as much cladding as those SSE's did.........

here in MN you mhave to digiently check used cars, any that are 3-4 years old or older for rust when you look at them. That's one reason why I lean towards new when i shop. Also, when you trade cars, that is what they are looking for. Here, in the land of REAL winter, it matters more than you think. that said, the plastic panels look less refined.

scratch edmunds off the list, they are a bunch of hacks with no cred. motor trend is off the list because their editorial team is overpopulated with pimple faced hacks now take away consumer reports too, they know how to judge toasters but no so much cars.

this would make you lose it for sure

the import bangers will tell you you can do so much better for 12 grand but i am one to say that 12 grand for a cobalt is a great value on a very nice car.

the cladding was the issue. they eventually made it body color and toned the seat cloth down.

people are idiots is all we say. bose sells a lot of speakers to folks who think they are the cat's meow; most of their products are worthless crap too sony, same thing, its garbage but it seems to satisfy the masses who don't get in and dissect it and really find out they could have had better.

this really isn't as heinous as everyone makes it out to be. It could be an Element or RAV4, now that would suck.

exactly. with the metal trim and nicer plastic and better steering wheel the latest Ion is not bad. I would LOVE a 2.4/manual sedan to tool around town in. It'd be even more fun if it had a redline powertrain.

i dunno, the aztek i own, the interior is one of the nicest that GM has offered. Nice seat cloth, interesting features. Nice gauges. The seats are supportive. Your 'theory' must explain why I've always liked the Ion also. HMMM. Styling is subjective. When I considered whether we wanted a minivan or an SUV and then factoring in budget and the alternatives, the Aztek came into Vue. Room, space, comfort, nice interior for a lot less than Toyota. Would I have preferred a Highlander? Absolutley not. The interior on that is dull and ugly. The Aztek's is much nicer. The Aztek isn't beautiful but from some angles, its not too bad. Show me a van or SUV that's completely attractive anyways. A Tribeca? A murano? PLEASE. The Ion I prefer to the Cobalt in many ways. Plastic doors, unique interior (has to be the right color). In some ways I prefer the Cobalt. I wouldn't say to those owners 'what were they thinking' because some owners place greater importance on the selection of a car than just looks.

quest still probably sells more at retail than the GM CSV's.........all 4 brands combined. GM's CSV's are practically all fleet. i think in 3 model years they have sold about 140,000 quests which isn't to shabby considering the heinous interior. and nearly all of those were retail.

The SRX's failure is a styling failure. Its a station wagon look, plain and simple. It doesn't have an SUV or crossover look. there IS a difference. The other reason the SRX fails is it looks too narrow and the cargo area looks worthless in size. The cheap looking 'sports sedan' interior doesn't help either. It should have a unique interior.

no, i don't like it because its B.F. UGLY!

one benefit to being house poor is in theory you build lots of equity quickly. We moved into our house here and got rid of our balloon mtge (which we needed because we hadn't sold our old house at the time yet) refinanced it to a 30yr fixed about 22 months later. they apraised it at 53,000 higher then when we bought it. Unreal. And the thing is built like crap. We'll be house poor for about 3 more years I figure. Once we get over the hump where the kid(s) are off to school and were not pumping coin into so much daycare, things will get easier and by then our house might be worth another 100 grand. We're using our house as one of our main investment vehicles, so in order to make money you have to put more into it. Even if the market ever takes a dip, historically over time its done nothing but go up. I can live with a theoretical 20 grand increase in equity each year. Had we bought a 200,000 dollar house instead, our equity increase would maybe only be about 10,000 a year. And the tax break from a big mortgage means healthy rebates, not paying in. Again, in theory. When you do sell your house the bankers and real estate agents strip away so much of your profit that it should be illegal. Real Estate agents shouldn't make 6 percent on a half a million dollar home. 2-3 percent would be acceptable. its not like they need more money to take more horrible glamour shot photos of themselves.

especially considering that our typical houses aren't really any more advanced then say, African huts.

quest sales were for the reasons you exactly said. they will easily double them with the new interior.