MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota woman at the center of a long-running court fight over the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music said there’s still no way she can pay record companies the $222,000 judgment she owes after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal Monday.
The justices did not comment on their decision. Attorneys for Jammie Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, argued the amount was excessive.
The music industry filed thousands of lawsuits in the early to mid-2000s against people it accused of downloading music without permission and without paying for it. Almost all the cases settled for about $3,500 apiece. Thomas-Rasset is one of only two defendants who refused to pay and went to trial. The other was former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, who also lost and was ordered to pay $675,000.
The industry initially sued Thomas-Rasset in 2006. Since then, her case has gone through three trials and several appeals. The industry presented evidence that Thomas-Rasset made available over 1,700 songs to other computer uses via the file-sharing service Kazaa, though the lawsuit targeted only 24 songs.
“I’m assuming that since they declined to hear the case it’s probably done at this point,” she said. But she also said she needed to consult with her attorneys to determine what happens next.
Thomas-Rasset, 35, who works for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal government, maintained – as she has all along – that she can’t afford to pay.
“There’s no way that they can collect,” she said. “Right now, I get energy assistance because I have four kids. It’s just the one income. My husband isn’t working. It’s not possible for them to collect even if they wanted to. I have no assets.”
Thomas-Rasset added that she became a grandmother in June.
The Recording Industry Association of America offered to settle for $5,000 when it first sued, and offered to settle for a $25,000 donation to a charity for music industry people in need after her second trial. She refused both times.
“We appreciate the Court’s decision and are pleased that the legal case is finally over,” the trade group said in a statement. “We’ve been willing to settle this case from day one and remain willing to do so.”
Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Kiwi Camara, of Houston, expressed disappointment in the outcome but hinted in an email that the legal options may not have run out. He noted that Tenenbaum’s case remains live before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Tenenbaum is still challenging the size of the judgment against him. His attorneys, including Camara, argue that it’s “grossly disproportionate” to his offense.
The case is Thomas-Rasset v. Capitol Records, 12-715.





















































































































Comments (86)
Diane TX
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:56pmThe file-sharing service Kazaa, was sued and had to pay $100 Million to the recording industry. They are no longer active.
The woman downloaded and shared 1,700 songs. That is a lot of songs. Did she charge a fee, or does she have a lot friends?
Report this comment
searcher619
Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:02amAre you really THIS tech illiterate? No one charges for files they are sharing. Kazaa died over a decade ago. People are now using torrents to share all kinds of files. These are the people they have going after. If you want it chances are someone is sharing it via torrents.
Report this comment
PASSIONFORCHRIST
Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:46amTells you how messed up the courts are. SHE DID NOT CHARGE OR MAKE ANY MONEY OFF HER DOWNLOADS. I bought something off e-bay one time, it clearly stated one thing, but when I received it, it was something you could download for free on the internet. He got something free, BUT THEN SOLD IT AND MADE MONEY OFF IT! I reported him, and received my money back. I keep an eye out for him, But haven’t seen him on e-bay.
Report this comment
QuincySmith
Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:10pmDiane;
The case involved 24 files, not 1700.
Report this comment
CatholicTexanGrandma
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:54pmI don’t understand the music download/share business at all. If I buy a book and loan it to 10 friends, the author doesn’t sue me. If I sell the book to a used bookstore and they resell it the author does not sue me. But if I buy a piece of music and share it via a program that someone else wrote and controls and a program that someone else made available, I become a criminal? Why don’t they go after the suppliers of the sharing software not the end users?
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:08pm@CATHOLIC GRANDMA..Apparently there are many performers who have sold their soul to Satan to get to where they are..people need to recognise what is going on here..They work hand in hand with the government as many are representatives of the illuminati..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21GOSnJc4Mg and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrcQxu80oqQ
Report this comment
Nabuquduriuzhur
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:19pmAs a writer, I WANT people to pass around my non-fiction books. One person buys, then loans it to friends. I want people to buy them and pass them around to a dozen friends. They are designed to tell people “how it is” and the more people who know, the better. I even put one of them online so anyone could read it before the election. (National Wave of Foolishness, Volume 2)
I wonder how one gets from a music download that runs about $1 to $3500? That is like telling a kid he’s going to prison for 20 years for stealing a candy bar. (Instead of a minor fine.)
If it were just about any other industry, the person would have to pay the going rate, plus a fine.
This matter reaches the level of moral evil, almost on an Islamic scale, where people are maimed for life or even murdered for petty crime like stealing or talking to non-relatives.
Imagine the judges in this matter allowing such absurd fines having to explain their actions to Jesus Christ at the White Throne Judgement? (A judge that would do such dishonest penalties for one case, is no doubt doing it for many cases.)
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:29pm@NABU..Excellent observation..I have never been into works of fiction..am so glad you are doing the world a service..would love to read your books..
Report this comment
booger71
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:59pmThe real rip-off artists are in China to the tune(no pun intended) of billions each year in CD’s. DVD’s and software. The Justice Dept can’t go after them, so they go after the only people they can harass.
Report this comment
termyt
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:59pmThe difference is the music in the lawsuit is digital. In your example, there is only one book and it was paid for. Whomever has the book is the only one in the book’s chain of ownership that has it at that moment.
With the digital music, the people kept a copy of the music and gave another copy of it to other people. So with the book example, it’s more like you made copies of the book and distributed them for free while keeping a copy for yourself. One copy was paid for, but multiple people have copies that were not paid for.
That’s the difference.
Report this comment
searcher619
Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:06amYou don’t get copyright infringement. Get this Studios regularly use copyrighted material they never purchased the rights to on commercial projects which make money. These recording studios don’t fine them like this. They pay a very small fine then simply purchase the rights to use the material. this woman made no money off this yet they are deliberately trying to ruin her financially. It makes me sick that the Supremes are spineless cowards and don’t want to rule on the constitutionality of what these companies are being allowed to do.
Report this comment
RepubliCorp
Mar. 19, 2013 at 6:43amCatholicTexanGrandma if you reprinted the book, then they would come after you. Get it?
Report this comment
love the kids
Mar. 19, 2013 at 7:58amWhat about if I bought a LP album years ago? My example, I have hundreds of albums that I purchased years ago, some of them I have even re-purchased as cassette taped and even CD’s, I have a Boston album, cassette and CD at home, why shouldn’t I have the right to download it for free now? I have already bought the same song 3 times???
Report this comment
vaman
Mar. 19, 2013 at 8:44amHey Ash, thanks for showing the world your crazy. Blazers…
Report this comment
jethrObama
Mar. 19, 2013 at 9:49amI believe artists should be paid (this from 12 years of my life in rock and roll). If you’re passing around my CD, fine… I got my money. But if you copy that CD and distribute that, well, then you’re not passing around a single copy any more….and I’m being cheated out of my income. Digital music is like that. You’re cheating someone out of their income.
Furthermore, the institution who distributes the music and has no license to distribute the music to un-named, on-demand entities (you) is just as guilty as the person taking the recording.
So unless you’re dealing with music which the artist freely released, pay for your music; or you’re no better than a thief.
Report this comment
txswalker
Mar. 19, 2013 at 9:56amWhen you buy a song on a electronic file you do not buy the song. You are buying the rights to that song.Compare it to reading a book, copying all the pages and distributing it for free. You have then violated copyright laws by distibuting copywrited material even tho you made no money. Same with a cd. If you give a song to a friend or 2 most companies will overlook it. But when you set up websites that allow thousands to steal that song the companies have to draw the line.
Report this comment
Tinman6764
Mar. 19, 2013 at 2:36pmI have thought about that too. Books/author, songwriter/singer. I guess if you buy a book on the internet the author gets a cut? Libraries are free so far but aren’t they sharing the written works, CD’s, and such?
Report this comment
Patriot72
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:47pmTheft is theft, regardless of how you slice it. Anti-business progressives like to howl about all of those musicians, artists and companies already being wealthy and that they should just give away X, Y and Z Blah…blah…blah. It is no artist or selling company’s fault that you don’t have enough dosh to buy something. If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. If you’re in the stick-it-to-the-man camp and just steal because you can, you’re even worse. If you take it, that’s stealing and it comes with criminal penalties whether it’s a book, movie, song, etc.
Report this comment
termyt
Mar. 18, 2013 at 11:04pmTheft is theft and what the people did was wrong and there should be a price paid. However, it’s not good to financially ruin people over it, either. It’s really hard to demonstrate that the music rights holders lost such a large sum of money because of this woman. What they lost was a small percentage of their value but what was demanded was 200-400% of the value of the perpetrators. What are we to do? Revive debtor prisons?
Any Constitutional scholars out there know why the 8th Amendment does not apply to civil judgements?
Report this comment
sputnik
Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:37amIf theft is theft… then you are likely a thief or have someone close to you that is. You have a DVR? theft. You make a youtube video that has music in it? theft. You write a book that uses ideas from anywhere beside your own head? theft. You ever recorded a song off the radio? theft. You ever quote a poem writing to a loved one? theft.
You see; probably any song you can get with a torrent, you can look up on youtube and listen anytime anyways – and anyone can record from youtube with 30 seconds of research effort. If things are as black and white as you say. I bet somewhere sometime you were (and are) a thief. There is a difference in taking someone else’s work and making money off of it, than it is storing something you could otherwise get for free anyways in a different format for personal use. Same with taking thoughts and work from others and making it your own. Tape recorders and VHS didn’t kill the music or movie industry yet they were afraid it would. They are trying to take money from people any way they can and see dollar signs lost in every possible download.
Report this comment
Melika
Mar. 19, 2013 at 6:08amI’m not sure the final verdict amount is just the cost of the damages. Since she insisted on going to court, she was probably slapped with court fees and attorney’s costs. This is her own fault, they were willing to settle for $3,500. That’s chump change in the business. It probably equates to the fees associated with playing the music. We all like to talk tort reform and loser pays, until we see how much the loser has to pay, then we start wondering if we want to be in that situation. I’m sure her racist attitudes contributed to this situation, and she’ll likely get off not paying anything.
Report this comment
DoOrDie
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:42pm“There’s no way that they can collect,” she said. “Right now, I get energy assistance because I have four kids. It’s just the one income. My husband isn’t working. It’s not possible for them to collect even if they wanted to. I have no assets.”
Well close your fu**ing legs, dumbazz. There are soooo many problems in America, but poor people constantly having kids, aka: being irresponsible, is a major problem.
Report this comment
Eric_The_Red_State
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:29pmThere’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
Report this comment
Stoic one
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:48pmShe was paraphrasing one of the Cesar’s.
Report this comment
rickc34
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:19pmPeople cry out for justice, and God will give justice …every crime and evil thought does not escape him and he will pass judgement on those that commit these crimes and refused and mocked his son and the Bible. Judgement and justice is coming . Smoking or none smoking ( Heaven or Hell) your choice. Remember there has never been the perfect crime God saw the whole thing.
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:02pmWow..using God like that? I am so glad that he is the judge and not you..All we have to do is confess our sins and God is faithful and just to forgive them..Seventy time seven..It reminds me of scripture which says that a man who was indebted to another couldn’t pay..so the one he was indebted to forgave the debt..and then after he was forgiven the debt..he went out and threatened his debtors when they couldn’t pay..and had no mercy on them..then his former creditor told him..”you wicked man..I forgave you your debt and you don’t forgive other’s theirs? Away with you..
Report this comment
Dr Vel
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:27pmashestoashes it also says judge not lest YOU be judged. How do you know whether or not He has forgiven others? He is merely pointing out the end for all those who do not choose wisely. Since this is exactly what the Lord taught and warned are you saying you are accusing Him of having no forgiveness? Since there will be many who perish clearly God did not forgive them all in the end ahead now did He? A warning, and a statement of the end of those who never choose to be forgiven, who do evil to others without repentance (a change of mind), and think they will always get away with it is all I see rickc34 saying.
In short He is merely stating the obvious as it is written in the Word. Put simply He is merely doing what He is supposed to do, warn people, and you are not. Instead you are going after Him for His words. If you get in the way of those serving a just cause then who is it you really work for in the end?
Don’t forget your soapbox on the way out.
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:40pm@DR VEL..I see what you are saying..My apologies Rick..
Report this comment
rickc34
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:57pmAshs- did you read and not understand what I was saying? God is willing to forgive but the person must repent ( turn from their sin) but for those who mock God how can he forgive them? They have rejected his love and commit blashemy against the Holy Spirit Mt 12-24. No I am not the judge God is and he does see everything, seventy times seven is when he was taling to Peter and the story of the King that forgave was showing how God is willing to forgive us and for us to do the same, all have sinned and fallen short of Gods glory , being a Christian we must resist temptation to do evil . I am not judgeing but warning those that are not saved and judge. I wish all would accept the free gift of salvation but sadly most will reject and die in their sins. No perfect crime . For the eyes of the Lord. are overs the rightous and his ears are open to their prayers but the. face of God is against them that do evil. 1 Peter 3:12.
Report this comment
rickc34
Mar. 18, 2013 at 11:05pmAshs it is okay and I agape you brother, keep up the good fight and time is running out. Do not let the trolls get under your skin God loves them to and wants them with him in Heaven.
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Mar. 18, 2013 at 11:31pm@RICK..I understood after Doc explained it to me..I my sincerest apologies..You are absolutely right.
@Doc..thank you Brother..I appreciate the correction…Blessings to you both..
Report this comment
rickc34
Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:50amThanks Dr Vel and God Bless
Report this comment
chips1
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:05pmOne thing I noticed about these lawsuits was that nothing has been said about whether the people have ever bought the song before. When I was into rock and roll in the early fifties, I bought records all the time. Some have been broken over the years, yet I still bought the song. If I happen to obtain it again because of the radio or Napster, I still paid for it. Not one of my records has an expiration date on it. I’ve paid for it already. What if your car broke down and Chevrolet sued you because you fixed a worn out part and you didn’t buy a new car. Same thing.
Report this comment
YesLiberalsAreThatDumb
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:26pmThey don’t get your for downloading, they get you for sharing. So, yes you bought an album, cassette, CD. You have the right to use that music on any device you want, but when you share it, and others download it, you have broken the law just the same as if you made a cd copy and handed it to your friend. Not sure how they arrived at $222,000 though. That is a lot of sharing!
Report this comment
kas447
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:05pmSo she can’t afford to pay what she owes and can’t afford her heating bill, but she has a functional computer and Internet connection with enough bandwidth to share pirated music via a P2P client? Am I the only one who finds this troublesome?
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:13pmSame reason the lady ahead of you in the grocery store line using her food stamps (EBT card) is talking on an Iphone 5 and then drives away in a Hummer.
Report this comment
mlgunner
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:22pmShe can’t afford to pay, can you?
That was stupid, it is an excessive judgement on a copy “right” that probably should have expired years ago anyway.
Most songs should be in the public domain, but the RECORD COMPANIES are still making money off of songs after 50, 60, 70, 10,000 years? The artists, don’t make a penny of it because record companies have been cheating them for years. Now they are trying to cheat grandma here.
Report this comment
Patriot72
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:50pmNope, you’re not alone. And MLGUNNER sounds like someone who also donwloads illegally and tries to justify the theft through the weak arguments of why are copyrights enforced so long? don’t the artists already have enough money? how could anyone pay that kind of fine? etc. It’s easy. DON”T STEAL! No stealy-stealy = no fine. That’s easy math.
Report this comment
Netsurfer2
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:44pmShe should have shut her mouth and paid them the 5000 in payments! But No, instead she continued to cost them even more money “driving up the cost in which she would owe them later”! Duh.. Let’s play with the monster! LOL… What an idiot!
Report this comment
eat-more-bacon-USA
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:44pmBut, can’t this crook just pay off the judgement with her magic obama-EBT card?
No need to worry – TAX PAYERS will end up paying off this judgement for her, just like we pay the rest of her bills.
Report this comment
jblovesAmerica
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:40pmUnder ShariLaw-The lady would be stoned to death-
while having buds stuffed into her??
Report this comment
billskip
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:39pmhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Want-My-Blaze-TV-Directv/405261719569337
Report this comment
AMERICA4EVER
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:33pmDon’t Obamy phones come preloaded with your choice of music?
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:43pmNo, pre-loaded with OBOZO speeches. Kinda like the Ipod he gave the queen.
Report this comment
Kevin J
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:31pmShe just wanted the artists to GIVE their fair share. Hey if it works for Obama to steal my money why not for her?
Report this comment
galaxie_man
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:26pmI have a different take on it. The record companies should just drop it and walk away. Back in the `80′s they pushed digitized music on those of us they loved (and I still do) vinyl and tape. You think their music isn’t still being ripped and swapped under the radar? Of course it is…..and it is an unintended consequence of their greed. Tough cookies to the mostly liberal entertainment industry.
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:33pmYou said: “Tough cookies to the mostly liberal entertainment industry.”
Are you suggesting that the punishment for a crime should be dependent upon the political posture of the victim? Should a rapist receive a lesser sentence if he rapes a liberal rather than a conservative? What if its a liberal’s daughter who is raped rather than a daughter from a conservative home?
Report this comment
Vision Harry
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:26pmSeriously. The same law abiding citizens who had no choice in the matter or were ever aware of such nonsense, will end up paying the final cost, and for their own “Final Solution”.
Pawn Much?”
Report this comment
TRYLiBERTY
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:22pmWhile I think it is an excessive amount, from what I gather from the context of this article is that this lady’s life is a series of ill-informed and bad decisions, which are not my fault. So, yes I feel sympathy for her hardships, but not to any extent that I feel I compelled do anything to help her. Until that is, she comes to the realization that she is the only one to blame and the only one who can fix her predicament.
Of course this is hypothetical; I do not know this lady.
Report this comment
Vision Harry
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:31pmLiberty, you are cold-hearted, concise, and brilliant. I think I love you
Report this comment
Colklink1957
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:01pmI think what you are missing, is she is evidently a member of a native american tribe. If that is the case, she has been indoctinated far longer than anyone of us. You want to see the results, go to a reservation, it’s what the progessives want for everyone. This whole system is a discusting, devient, lie. They only want control, they have the auto industry, the tax industry, the education industry, the media industry, as bad as i hate to say, I think we are headed to a country the majority of us will not recognize. The Younger generation will never notice, truly sad.
Report this comment
chips1
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:14pmCOLKLINK:
I wasn’t aware I had to remain on the Reservation. I’d better sneak back before they find out.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Mar. 18, 2013 at 10:40pm“ill informed and bad decisions…” That is the perfect example of a liberal in America.
Their sadly is no cure for their disease.
Report this comment
Saving_the_Republic.com
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:21pmSurprised people are losing these cases. Sony v Universal 1984 set the precedent to record media as long as it was for personal use. Blank tapes(audio/video cassettes) of the past are the hard drives and memory cards of today. The storage devices and way media is delivered may have changed but its all still the same.
Report this comment
SgtB
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:31pmDon’t forget the home recording act of the early 90′s. There is no reason in hell why a person should lose a case such as this. As long as any song has been aired publicly, there is no way they can keep it copyrighted to this extent. Whatever you broadcast to the world, is free to those who can receive it. Plain and simple. At least we don’t have the BBC coming door to door to do checks of our homes for tv’s with antennas. Over there, they charge you, or at least try to charge you, to receive over the air tv.
Report this comment
one.dakine.howlie
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:47pmWhile I think this is a losing battle for the recording industry I’d like to point out one flaw of your argument. Those “acts” you speak of have only to do with “personal use”. Since she made music downloads available to others via the file-sharing program Kazaa she is no longer using the music for “personal use”. Those recording acts have no precedence here.
Report this comment
AngryK9
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:47pmThe intent of that law was to allow someone who had already paid for the music to rerecord it onto another medium. In those days it was a vinyl record which was not at all portable and the law allowed you to legally rerecord it onto a cassette tape. In this lady’s case she didn’t pay for the music in the first place. She went to a music sharing site and downloaded it. She gets what she deserves. Oh yeah, and it’s my fault that her husband doesn’t work and she still decided to breed and have 4 kids. Somehow this should create a financial obligation on my part?
Report this comment
MarvinMr
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:17pmMeanwhile, the banks steal BILLION$ and pay nothing, no one goes to jail, and we give them money as our way of saying “thanks.” This is WAY over the top. I bet few people convicted of murder pay this kind of fines.
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:17pmThe music industry, particularly rap and hip hop encourages and glorifies a thug lifestyle. Then they get their collective panties in a twist when their customers steal their music. However, even though I have no sympathy for the music industry, I also have no sympathy for the criminals stealing the music. These large judgments are the only way to get the attention of those who believe stealing a digital copy of a song is somehow different than stealing a CD out of store. Theft is theft, it doesn’t matter what form the product is in.
Report this comment
gyro
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:14pmshe says —-There’s no way that they can collect,” she said. “Right now, I get energy assistance because I have four kids. It’s just the one income. My husband isn’t working. It’s not possible for them to collect even if they wanted to. I have no assets.”
Obama says —- food stamps free phones and obamacare
same thing isnt it ?
Report this comment
dodgedart1966
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:13pmDid she make any money? Sounds like NO. How much did the record co’s pay for these cases?
Ridiculous.
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:22pmWould you prefer they do nothing and simply allow anyone and everyone to steal their product with no consequence?
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:12pmYou mean somebody expects to be paid for their labor? How can this be in new Amerika where everything is ‘free’?
Report this comment
shorelineliz
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:08pmIs it a million gazillion dollars?
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:07pmHey, Jack, you download music, it’s illegal. They offered you a low settlement, you wanted to keep fighting them. As Si always says, “In Vietnam, we didn’t have downloaded music, just Charlie, and he ain’t nice. Simple, don’t steal.”
Well, maybe she can get a bailout from the taxpayers.
Report this comment
gyro
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:18pmDidnt Charlie, fly around broadcasting music for free over realy loud speakers ?
and was that ever a good idea !
Report this comment
gyro
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:25pmI mixed that up omg my memory is getting screwed up
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:29pmGyro:
They were all provided free, from Jane Fonda and her friends. Besides they only played knock off songs like Tumbling Rocks – I see a red door and I want to paint it black; 3 Dog Dinner Plate – Momma told me not to go.
Report this comment
gyro
Mar. 18, 2013 at 8:50pmDarmok and Jalad at Tanagra — it is almost unamerican to say anything against Jane Fonda now days ( hanoi jane)
I grew up in a very conservitive family and I remember clearly my dad shaking his fist at the cbc news as they showed her on tv ALOT
Me I just didnt get it as my older brother zoomed around in his miny cooper pis**ing of my dad
Then my brother went to cyprus as a piece keeper and his ideas changed 180 degrees after some nut shot at him
A lot of canadians were in that war in Viet Nam and died and history forgets it
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Mar. 18, 2013 at 9:42pmGyro:
My dad actually met Hanoi Jane going through LAX, she was passing out anti-nuclear material, my dad worked for a company that was building Nuke Power plants, he said he almost spit in her face, but did talk to her for a few minutes to tell her what a piece of cow dung she was and he wished a Viet Cong would forcibly make love to her with a bungee stick. But he used more colorful language than that.
Report this comment