• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Canada Pulls Plug on Keystone Pipeline – Will Send Oil to Asia

That's cool - I just wanted to clarify since my post #5 was getting reported a little bit broader than what I actually tried to share.

Nothing against you, my man.
 
WAY TO GO BARRY!!!!!!! :mrgreen:

We damn sure don't need that toxic sludge crossing our nation! Fact is sweet crude was being diverted to make way for that chemical hot mess from our good friends to the North. Fact is all manner of pipelines are being built criss-crossing the same area as Keystone would but without the chemicals required to keep tar in suspension. (one such pipeline is crossing Cotton County OK as we type.)

Plenty of the same jobs spread over a MUCH larger area, to a lot more companies and for a lot longer period of time.

We have plenty of oil to refine without trying to deal with the worst of the worse! :doh

Big Oil overplayed their hand, let China mess with that crap. :peace

We damn sure don't need the jobs. Right?
 
That was just referring to the impression that I didn't blame Obama for the pipeline not having been approved - he was actually to blame, since he made the decision not to decide for political, not economic or environmental reasons - I was just saying that Obama's involvement now is basically irrelevant because it's likely going to drag past his Presidency before it's decided.

Obama's has many stated reasons for not moving forward on Keystone, none of them are political.
 
Where is America's far ****tier and far more greenhouse gas impactful coal going?

We can discuss the economics of the issue, but the left's blind obsession with trying to convince people that the oilsands will destroy the world just proves how gullible and ignorant many on the left truly are.
The issue with tar sands isn't it's impact on greenhouse gasses.
Coal doesn't generally spill into rivers.
The jobs that Keystone would generate would have been largely Canadian. There would not be any consequential impact on domestic gasoline prices and the US would be burdened with of ALL the environmental risk of an unproven product, pumped through untested pipelines over critical US water supplies and waterways.
If Canada wants to sell their tar sand crap to Europe and Asia let them build their own pipeline over Canadian aquifers and get it to a Canadian port.
The President protected Americans from a risk that brought no advantage to Americans and I am glad he did.
 
The issue with tar sands isn't it's impact on greenhouse gasses.
Coal doesn't generally spill into rivers.
The jobs that Keystone would generate would have been largely Canadian. There would not be any consequential impact on domestic gasoline prices and the US would be burdened with of ALL the environmental risk of an unproven product, pumped through untested pipelines over critical US water supplies and waterways.
If Canada wants to sell their tar sand crap to Europe and Asia let them build their own pipeline over Canadian aquifers and get it to a Canadian port.
The President protected Americans from a risk that brought no advantage to Americans and I am glad he did.

So you're another foolish progressive who thinks trains loaded with oil are safer than pipelines. And I guess you think the crude flowing from Canada to refineries in the US gulf just magically gets processed without Americans working in refineries, right? And I guess you think that oil producers in the US midwest who would also use the pipeline are all employing foreigners, right?
 
It's only Obama's craven politicizing of the issue that has delayed the project, but America lets him get away with it, so not really his fault. It's like the Kardashians having a TV show - if there's an audience for the nonsense, someone will sell it.

that's pretty funny, Obama has been cravenly politicizing the issue! :lamo

We got an entire right wing working as PR hacks for a Canadian company's right to have a governmental power of imminent domain to build a pipeline across the U.S. to transport Canadian oil to U.S. refineries for shipment to the Far East. And just for the record it is also deep red state Nebraska, concerned about a pipeline over one of country's largest aquifers, who is also STILL DELAYING the project. Oh wait, here's a story in Bloomberg from Feb 2014. Obama Keystone Pipeline Review Roiled by Nebraska Judge - Bloomberg

A Nebraska judge’s decision throwing out the Keystone XL pipeline route in the state may push President Barack Obama’s final decision on the contested project until after the midterm congressional elections.

Judge Stephanie Stacy in Lincoln yesterday invalidated legislation that let Republican Governor Dave Heineman approve the route and bypass the state Public Service Commission. TransCanada Corp. (TRP) will need commission approval, a process that by state law can take seven months.
....
“This means that if you are sitting in a TransCanada boardroom, you have a lot of variables out there, including the fact that you don’t have an approved pathway through a critical state,” Chris Lehane, a political aide with Steyer’s group, said today. “Even in a state like Nebraska, the politics of this are evolving.”

But it's all Obama's fault, because that's what right wing lemmings hear on Fox all day. Can't make this stuff up.
 
He didn't explain anything for me. He expressed his point of view. The fact is, Obama is dragging his feet on the pipeline construction. He's 100% responsible for the pipeline not being built, right now, as we speak.

Well, him and Nebraska, a red state, which still hasn't approved the route across their state. But don't let the facts bother you.
 
that's pretty funny, Obama has been cravenly politicizing the issue! :lamo

We got an entire right wing working as PR hacks for a Canadian company's right to have a governmental power of imminent domain to build a pipeline across the U.S. to transport Canadian oil to U.S. refineries for shipment to the Far East. And just for the record it is also deep red state Nebraska, concerned about a pipeline over one of country's largest aquifers, who is also STILL DELAYING the project. Oh wait, here's a story in Bloomberg from Feb 2014. Obama Keystone Pipeline Review Roiled by Nebraska Judge - Bloomberg



But it's all Obama's fault, because that's what right wing lemmings hear on Fox all day. Can't make this stuff up.

Think what you want - deflect all you want - if you think Obama is an innocent bystander, you're his dream citizen and those who make money and political hay off the environment and the green scam are delighted you're around.
 
Think what you want - deflect all you want - if you think Obama is an innocent bystander, you're his dream citizen and those who make money and political hay off the environment and the green scam are delighted you're around.

He's far from an innocent bystander. I was just pointing out that for some reason you failed to mention that Nebraska, a red state, still hasn't approved the route through that state and so is at least partly responsible for the delay.

And it's another issue, but I don't think the concern over AGW is a scam, which puts me in good company, roughly all the career climate scientists who study the issue. I don't think the approval of Keystone or denial will make any difference because the oil is coming out and getting refined some way or another, but I don't dismiss the concerns of the environmentalists because they have SCIENCE on their side, as opposed to propaganda, that you've apparently bought into.
 
He's far from an innocent bystander. I was just pointing out that for some reason you failed to mention that Nebraska, a red state, still hasn't approved the route through that state and so is at least partly responsible for the delay.

And it's another issue, but I don't think the concern over AGW is a scam, which puts me in good company, roughly all the career climate scientists who study the issue. I don't think the approval of Keystone or denial will make any difference because the oil is coming out and getting refined some way or another, but I don't dismiss the concerns of the environmentalists because they have SCIENCE on their side, as opposed to propaganda, that you've apparently bought into.

Well, you're simply wrong because Nebraska did approve the initial route, the Obama administration delayed the decision, an election was held in Nebraska where the route was an issue and Trans Canada Pipelines and the Nebraska government agreed to revisit and change the route, which they did, and the Nebraska government again approved the route. While Obama was playing with his March Madness picks and polishing his golf balls, environmental activists took the Nebraska government to court over a procedural technicality and a court agreed that it should be sent back to the legislature for review.

Now, your US Supreme Court can be highly political but I've yet to see any comments that imply the Nebraska State Supreme Court is also ideological and political. The delays in process can all be laid at the feet of Obama and his administration for crash political reasons - he wanted/wants neither to upset the environmentalist and billionaire eco-nuts who largely funded his two elections nor his friends in the construction and oil patch unions. Obama has had numerous opportunities to approve the project - his State Department has approved it I believe three times after reviews and he's sat on his ass - so it's pretty rich now to blame a court in Nebraska for the project not being approved and to, by extension, try to blame that on Republicans.

As for climate scientists being on Obama and the environmentalist's side as it relates to Keystone, that's just utter nonsense. Even those who believe deeply in AGW unanimously agree that transporting oil over pipelines is better for the environment than transporting it over train, truck, or tanker. In addition, the effects on the environment related to the oilsands are miniscule in relation to the 40% of energy the US gets from coal fired electricity and the obscene 80-90% that India and China produce out of their coal fired electricity plants, fueled primarily by Obama's 50% increase in the production and export of US coal.

You can dance around and thump your chest all you want about this being about the environment, but we all know that's just nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Well, you're simply wrong because Nebraska did approve the initial route, the Obama administration delayed the decision, an election was held in Nebraska where the route was an issue and Trans Canada Pipelines and the Nebraska government agreed to revisit and change the route, which they did, and the Nebraska government again approved the route. While Obama was playing with his March Madness picks and polishing his golf balls, environmental activists took the Nebraska government to court over a procedural technicality and a court agreed that it should be sent back to the legislature for review.

So, there is STILL no approved route through Nebraska. That was my point.

Now, your US Supreme Court can be highly political but I've yet to see any comments that imply the Nebraska State Supreme Court is also ideological and political. The delays in process can all be laid at the feet of Obama and his administration for crash political reasons - he wanted/wants neither to upset the environmentalist and billionaire eco-nuts who largely funded his two elections nor his friends in the construction and oil patch unions. Obama has had numerous opportunities to approve the project - his State Department has approved it I believe three times after reviews and he's sat on his ass - so it's pretty rich now to blame a court in Nebraska for the project not being approved and to, by extension, try to blame that on Republicans.

First of all, there is crass politics being played on both sides. For the life of me I can't understand why right wingers in the U.S. are so concerned about a pipeline that will be built by a foreign company to ship foreign oil to the Gulf coast for the filthy refining job to be shipped to overseas markets. It's perhaps an interesting side issue, but our House of Representatives has reacted as if carrying water for Keystone and the oil companies in Canada is at the top of their list of things to do for the U.S. It makes no sense. As a Canadian, I guess I understand your concern, but see no reason why a U.S. political system should hop when Canadians say 'jump' or why anyone on this side of the border not directly affected, roughly 99.99% of the U.S., has more than a passing interest.

As for climate scientists being on Obama and the environmentalist's side as it relates to Keystone, that's just utter nonsense. Even those who believe deeply in AGW unanimously agree that transporting oil over pipelines is better for the environment than transporting it over train, truck, or tanker. In addition, the effects on the environment related to the oilsands are miniscule in relation to the 40% of energy the US gets from coal fired electricity and the obscene 80-90% that India and China produce out of their coal fired electricity plants, fueled primarily by Obama's 50% increase in the production and export of US coal.

First of all, as I said, I mostly agree with you that the pipeline will have little effect - you quoted me saying the oil is coming out of the ground one way or another. But the fact is the captured carbon in the oil sands IS significant in relation to the big picture. It's not the only problem, but there is no ONE step that if taken will all by itself address the problems of carbon and climate change, if carbon is a serious threat. So saying about each source of carbon, THAT one by itself if addressed will not solve the issue, is just a convenient way to throw up one's hands and say let's do nothing at all.

You can dance around and thump your chest all you want about this being about the environment, but we all know that's just nonsense.

I haven't been dancing around or thumping my chest on this issue at all. You brought up the issue, and I addressed it rationally and calmly, even agreeing with much of your point about AGW and the oil sands.
 
Add to this ISIS will most likely take over the majority of oil in the Middle East if not stopped.
 
So, there is STILL no approved route through Nebraska. That was my point.



First of all, there is crass politics being played on both sides. For the life of me I can't understand why right wingers in the U.S. are so concerned about a pipeline that will be built by a foreign company to ship foreign oil to the Gulf coast for the filthy refining job to be shipped to overseas markets. It's perhaps an interesting side issue, but our House of Representatives has reacted as if carrying water for Keystone and the oil companies in Canada is at the top of their list of things to do for the U.S. It makes no sense. As a Canadian, I guess I understand your concern, but see no reason why a U.S. political system should hop when Canadians say 'jump' or why anyone on this side of the border not directly affected, roughly 99.99% of the U.S., has more than a passing interest.



First of all, as I said, I mostly agree with you that the pipeline will have little effect - you quoted me saying the oil is coming out of the ground one way or another. But the fact is the captured carbon in the oil sands IS significant in relation to the big picture. It's not the only problem, but there is no ONE step that if taken will all by itself address the problems of carbon and climate change, if carbon is a serious threat. So saying about each source of carbon, THAT one by itself if addressed will not solve the issue, is just a convenient way to throw up one's hands and say let's do nothing at all.



I haven't been dancing around or thumping my chest on this issue at all. You brought up the issue, and I addressed it rationally and calmly, even agreeing with much of your point about AGW and the oil sands.


A few points:

1. I didn't bring up the issue - someone else created the OP - I simply offered a clarification and a rebuttal to the contention that either Canada controls the pipeline project or that Canada could or did pull the plug on it.

2. I'm not concerned about the pipeline - I've said on several threads on the issue that the dithering of Obama has pushed Canada into expediting approvals for east-west pipelines to get the oil to Canadian refineries in Atlantic Canada and to western ports for tanker shipment to Asian refineries. By doing so, they keep most of the high paying jobs in Canada and revitalize our east coast refineries.

3. Refinery jobs may be "filthy" but the pay in the field is in the upper middle class brackets and the families and businesses in the American gulf coast region who rely on the business, as well as communities who depend on the spending power of those families and businesses don't consider their work to be "filthy". They consider it honest, hard work and are paid well accordingly.

4. As said previously, not all of the oil that would flow through this pipeline comes from the Canadian oilsands. It's why this "foreign" pipeline company got approvals from the Obama administration to go ahead and build the southern portions of the project, I believe from Oklahoma to Texas. The more northern portions of the pipeline will transport not only crude from Canada but will also transport refined product from midwest American refineries that are now transporting American refined oil primarily by train or stranded in the midwest where prices are accordingly low. The lack of access to larger American market as well as world markets reduces the economic viability of these American jobs - by approving the pipeline and the enhanced flow of American product, these American centers become more secure.

5. Obama wants Canada to institute a carbon tax, similar to ones that have economically crippled parts of Europe as a condition of approving the pipeline even though Obama has been unwilling or unable to get a carbon tax approved in the US. The US is exponentially more polluting and damaging to the environment than Canada would or could ever be and yet he wants Canada to cripple its economy so he can play political games in Washington. Carbon tax schemes are complete frauds, just as most renewable energy projects. They provide no solution to a questionable problem and do nothing but make political cronies of the left into billionaires at the expense of the population. It's why so many American billionaires are funding opposition to Keystone and funding Obama politically.

Obama may be able to delay progress at this point, but he'd have more respect in Canada and perhaps other parts of the US if he spoke solely to the economic issues and not hypocritically about the non-existent environmental issues involved.
 
The Tar Sands pits in Alberta are one of the biggest environmental catastrophes in the world, if not the worst. They can be seen from outerspace like big holes in Canada. Native Americans in the region are all getting cancer from exposure to this "bitumen". Also they are culling endangered wolves in the area.

And most importlantly, none of these people can safely transport this stuff, because they arent refining it in Canada. Its being sent as Tar Sand, which is very caustic and has to be transported through pipelines more rapidly than oil. The fact that these companies cut corners and use old pipelines that are prone to rupture after high speeding, caustic tar sand is flying though them makes it an unreliable idea.

If you seriously check it out, they have spilled so much in the USA already and its harder to clean up than oil, if not impossible.
 
A few points:

1. I didn't bring up the issue - someone else created the OP - I simply offered a clarification and a rebuttal to the contention that either Canada controls the pipeline project or that Canada could or did pull the plug on it.

You blamed the entire delay on Obama, and that's an incomplete picture of what's happening to that northern section, which relies on an approved route through Nebraska, which has not happened.

2. I'm not concerned about the pipeline - I've said on several threads on the issue that the dithering of Obama has pushed Canada into expediting approvals for east-west pipelines to get the oil to Canadian refineries in Atlantic Canada and to western ports for tanker shipment to Asian refineries. By doing so, they keep most of the high paying jobs in Canada and revitalize our east coast refineries.

As a Canadian, I'd think you'd like that result.

3. Refinery jobs may be "filthy" but the pay in the field is in the upper middle class brackets and the families and businesses in the American gulf coast region who rely on the business, as well as communities who depend on the spending power of those families and businesses don't consider their work to be "filthy". They consider it honest, hard work and are paid well accordingly.

I agree, any jobs are good jobs. Texas communities where those refineries are located probably care a great deal about this issue, as do the owners of the refineries, and the people in Canada who will fetch a higher price per barrel of oil, and can ship oil more cheaply to Texas. The point was the effect is VERY geographically limited.

4. As said previously, not all of the oil that would flow through this pipeline comes from the Canadian oilsands. It's why this "foreign" pipeline company got approvals from the Obama administration to go ahead and build the southern portions of the project, I believe from Oklahoma to Texas. The more northern portions of the pipeline will transport not only crude from Canada but will also transport refined product from midwest American refineries that are now transporting American refined oil primarily by train or stranded in the midwest where prices are accordingly low. The lack of access to larger American market as well as world markets reduces the economic viability of these American jobs - by approving the pipeline and the enhanced flow of American product, these American centers become more secure.

I don't believe Obama had to approve state pipelines.

5. Obama wants Canada to institute a carbon tax, similar to ones that have economically crippled parts of Europe as a condition of approving the pipeline even though Obama has been unwilling or unable to get a carbon tax approved in the US. The US is exponentially more polluting and damaging to the environment than Canada would or could ever be and yet he wants Canada to cripple its economy so he can play political games in Washington. Carbon tax schemes are complete frauds, just as most renewable energy projects. They provide no solution to a questionable problem and do nothing but make political cronies of the left into billionaires at the expense of the population. It's why so many American billionaires are funding opposition to Keystone and funding Obama politically.

I get that if you don't believe AGW is an issue that you'd oppose carbon taxes and alternative energy, and support subsidies for fossil fuels, but that doesn't make carbon taxes or renewable energy projects 'frauds.' And I've never seen anything to indicate Obama is tying a Canadian carbon tax to approval. I found this article which says that notion is just false.

Ready for Justin's carbon tax? | LEVANT | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Obama may be able to delay progress at this point, but he'd have more respect in Canada and perhaps other parts of the US if he spoke solely to the economic issues and not hypocritically about the non-existent environmental issues involved.

I don't need to repeat myself, but the notion that the environmental issues are 'non-existent' just isn't shared by scientists, or frankly those worried about toxic sludge piped across the U.S. given the long history of pipeline failures, and that the oil sands product is particularly corrosive. Nebraska's concerns have been about the latter, which is why the pipeline now will avoid the aquifer.
 
You blamed the entire delay on Obama, and that's an incomplete picture of what's happening to that northern section, which relies on an approved route through Nebraska, which has not happened.

I don't believe Obama had to approve state pipelines.

I'll just comment on these two parts.

1. The entire delay can be blamed solely on Obama because all parties had approvals for the original route, including federal departments in Obama's administration, and he refused to make a decision on it for political reasons. Everything that's followed is a direct result of that dithering. Can't be denied.

2. I'm not aware of any project, at least not one involving Trans Canada Pipelines, the proponent in Keystone, that involves simple state to state pipelines being built. The entire project spans several states and because it's all one project, crossing an international border, it requires Presidential approval. I have no knowledge that TCP is interested in building small pieces all over the place.
 
The Tar Sands pits in Alberta are one of the biggest environmental catastrophes in the world, if not the worst. They can be seen from outerspace like big holes in Canada. Native Americans in the region are all getting cancer from exposure to this "bitumen". Also they are culling endangered wolves in the area.

And most importlantly, none of these people can safely transport this stuff, because they arent refining it in Canada. Its being sent as Tar Sand, which is very caustic and has to be transported through pipelines more rapidly than oil. The fact that these companies cut corners and use old pipelines that are prone to rupture after high speeding, caustic tar sand is flying though them makes it an unreliable idea.

If you seriously check it out, they have spilled so much in the USA already and its harder to clean up than oil, if not impossible.

I'm sure Trans Canada Pipelines, a leader in the field, will be interested in your libelous statements.
 
Canada pulls the plug on the U.S. Keystone Pipeline – will send oil to Asia | Watts Up With That?

Obama’s inability to make a decision on Keystone has finally yielded a result – Canada has made the decision for him.

Breitbart reports Canada has just approved the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – a major pipeline to ship Canadian oil to Asia.

The Canadian oil will still be burnt – in Asia, instead of America.

All the jobs and energy security which Canadian oil could have delivered to America, will instead be delivered to Asia


Way to go Barry.

Part of the original purpose of the pipeline was to get the oil to refineries near a port where it could be shipped abroad.
 
I'll just comment on these two parts.

1. The entire delay can be blamed solely on Obama because all parties had approvals for the original route, including federal departments in Obama's administration, and he refused to make a decision on it for political reasons. Everything that's followed is a direct result of that dithering. Can't be denied.

Yeah, it can be denied because Nebraska still hasn't approved any route through their state. Here's a 2012 article about opposition in Nebraska, pointing out that red state UNANIMOUSLY turned down the original route over the aquifer and through the Sand Hills. Keystone XL pipeline crosses political boundaries in Nebraska and beyond - The Washington Post

2. I'm not aware of any project, at least not one involving Trans Canada Pipelines, the proponent in Keystone, that involves simple state to state pipelines being built. The entire project spans several states and because it's all one project, crossing an international border, it requires Presidential approval. I have no knowledge that TCP is interested in building small pieces all over the place.

You could be right, but I didn't think the interior part needed approval more than the ordinary permits required for any pipeline. The sticking point as I've understood it was the crossing of the border between Canada and the U.S. which can't occur without signoff by Obama's people.
 
I'm sure Trans Canada Pipelines, a leader in the field, will be interested in your libelous statements.

tarsands3.jpg


Link to proof that anything michijo said is libelous?
 
The Keystone deal was a joke anyway. It put American drinking water on the line for nothing but vague corporate promises. If the pipeline was supposed to be so beneficial, TransCanada should have been willing to put a guarantee for jobs and local crude sales in writing.
 
tarsands3.jpg


Link to proof that anything michijo said is libelous?

Link to any proof that Trans Canada Pipelines has any liability or culpability related to the statement "The fact that these companies cut corners and use old pipelines that are prone to rupture after high speeding, caustic tar sand is flying though them makes it an unreliable idea."

I can post up "pretty" pictures too, like the one in this link:

http://www.syncrude.ca/environmental-commitment/land-reclamation/
 
Last edited:

Do you also want to shut down the mining and refining of rare earth minerals, a necessary component of new tech in the communications and green alternative energy fields, 95% of which are mined in China, the extraction of which kills the water table and lakes in the vicinity, kills the vegetation and wildlife, does untold damage to the employees and leaves great swaths of man made deserts? Or are you okay with that because it's in China, with Chinese employees, and it supports your supposed environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. Gonna give up your laptop, your smart phone and your solar panels? If not, are you prepared to have Obama insist on reopening California's rare earth mineral mines that were closed in the 80s for environmental reasons - how about opening them up in Colorado and other US states, since America has vast reserved of the minerals and they are the primary consumer of them?

How about coal? Do you want to shut down coal production in the US, that Obama has incidentally increased export of by 50%, plowing the much more damaging polluter into China and India to feed their coal fired electricity plants? You live in Georgia - are you calling for the closing of all coal mines in your state and neighbouring states or are you just concerned about Canadian wolves?
 
Do you also want to shut down the mining and refining of rare earth minerals, a necessary component of new tech in the communications and green alternative energy fields, 95% of which are mined in China, the extraction of which kills the water table and lakes in the vicinity, kills the vegetation and wildlife, does untold damage to the employees and leaves great swaths of man made deserts? Or are you okay with that because it's in China, with Chinese employees, and it supports your supposed environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. Gonna give up your laptop, your smart phone and your solar panels? If not, are you prepared to have Obama insist on reopening California's rare earth mineral mines that were closed in the 80s for environmental reasons - how about opening them up in Colorado and other US states, since America has vast reserved of the minerals and they are the primary consumer of them?

How about coal? Do you want to shut down coal production in the US, that Obama has incidentally increased export of by 50%, plowing the much more damaging polluter into China and India to feed their coal fired electricity plants? You live in Georgia - are you calling for the closing of all coal mines in your state and neighbouring states or are you just concerned about Canadian wolves?

That tar sands pit is perhaps the worst environmental catastrophe in the world. Obviously I cant control China.

I have been thinking lately that most of my electronics are not really good for me. In fact, I am about to move to a new apartment and Ive decided not to even have the internet turned on or get a TV and just sit in there and read and paint. After all, online I only encounter this types of conservatives who I dont need to talk to.

BTW, I walked in this protest in Maine and I am actually in this video, I walk by the camera. It was really cold that day:

 
Back
Top Bottom