New Monopoly Game Makes Fun of Patriot Act (1 Viewer)

[ManOfTrueTruth]

Patriot Act Game Pokes Fun at Government By WAYNE PARRY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 18, 12:47 PM ET

HAMILTON, N.J. - In this send-up of "Monopoly," players don't pass "Go" and they don't go directly to jail — they go to Guantanamo Bay.

Instead of losing cash for landing on certain squares, they lose civil liberties. And the "Mr. Monopoly" character at the center of the board is replaced by a scowling former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"Patriot Act: The Home Version" pokes fun at "the historic abuse of governmental powers" by the recently renewed anti-terrorism law.

But while it may be fun, creator Michael Kabbash, a graphic artist and Arab civil rights advocate, is serious about how he feels the law has curtailed Americans' freedom.

The object of the game is not to amass the most money or real estate, but to be the last player to retain civil liberties.

"I've had people complain to me that when they play, nobody wins. They say `We're all in Guantanamo and nobody has any civil liberties left,'" he said. "I'm like `Yeah, that's the point.'"

In a nod to President Bush's prewar comments, the "Go" space in is renamed "Bring It On!" Players roll the dice to determine how many civil liberties they start out with, accumulating them from a variety of categories: U.S. citizens get 5; non-citizens 1. Whites and Asians get 5; Arabs 1. Ultra right-wingers get 6; Democrats 3 or 4.

Instead of landing on, say Oriental Avenue, players land on a color-coded spaces corresponding to the national terror alert. A player who lands on a red space loses one civil liberty, as does anyone else within five spaces. A player who lands on an orange space gets to designate another player to lose one civil liberty.

"Chance" cards are now " Homeland Security Cards," with orders such as, " FBI wants you for questioning; Lose one turn;" and "You provide the local authorities with speculative information on your next door neighbor; Collect one civil liberty from each player."

Ashcroft had no comment on the game when asked about it Saturday during a crime conference in Miami Gardens, Fla., but he laughed when told "jail" had been replaced with Guantanamo Bay. U.S. Justice Department public affairs did not immediately return a call Saturday seeking comment.

Kabbash says his next project will probably have something to do with the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program. He is reasonably certain "there's a file on me somewhere."

Asked if the FBI keeps a file on Kabbash, a bureau spokesman refused to comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_en_ot/patriot_act_game

 

[jfuh]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_en_ot/patriot_act_game

I think the very serious question one has to ask with regards to this thread is, where can I get one?

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

I think the very serious question one has to ask with regards to this thread is, where can I get one?

You can download it off the internet. You might be able to actually buy the boardgame itself, who knows. But still, it's a funny game that makes fun of the sad state of affairs that America has sunk to.

 

[alphamale]

Fantasy for appeaser liberals to take their minds off how they've lost all three branches of government! :lol:

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

Fantasy for appeaser liberals to take their minds off how they've lost all three branches of government! :lol:

I have seen republicans appease tyrants as well, or reward or assist tyrants. Anyway, it seems you think that Republican control of Congress is pretty secure. Their is no such thing as a secure job.

 

[alphamale]

I have seen republicans appease tyrants as well, or reward or assist tyrants. Anyway, it seems you think that Republican control of Congress is pretty secure. Their is no such thing as a secure job.

When republicans dealt with tyrants, it was as a strategic move within the vastly more important cold war struggle between the US and the soviet union. When liberals put on their Banana Republic clothes and go down and Schmooze with castro, or during the Sandanista dictatorship head down there and do a little revolutionary slumming (the dictator's flunkies giggled at them behind their backs and called them "sandalistas" behind their backs because of their chic "third world" outfits) it's because they really do like communist dictators.

As the great Harry Truman said "He may be a s.o.b., but he's our s.o.b.

 

[ManOfTrueTruth]

When republicans dealt with tyrants, it was as a strategic move within the vastly more important cold war struggle between the US and the soviet union. When liberals put on their Banana Republic clothes and go down and Schmooze with castro, or during the Sandanista dictatorship head down there and do a little revolutionary slumming (the dictator's flunkies giggled at them behind their backs and called them "sandalistas" behind their backs because of their chic "third world" outfits) it's because they really do like communist dictators.

As the great Harry Truman said "He may be a s.o.b., but he's our s.o.b.

That's not always the case, their were times when Republicans were more interested in advancing the interests of the rich people who bought, paid for them and owned them under the cover of "fighting communism" rather than fighting any real communist threat. This was done by overthrowing democratically elected governments and instituting dictatorships that served the economic interests of the people who owned the republicans. But I agree, that, just like the republicans, the democrats have also appeased and rewarded tyrants.

 

[jfuh]

That's not always the case, their were times when Republicans were more interested in advancing the interests of the rich people who bought, paid for them and owned them under the cover of "fighting communism" rather than fighting any real communist threat. This was done by overthrowing democratically elected governments and instituting dictatorships that served the economic interests of the people who owned the republicans. But I agree, that, just like the republicans, the democrats have also appeased and rewarded tyrants.

Aren't they still? One name, Jack Abramoff.

 

[alphamale]

That's not always the case, their were times when Republicans were more interested in advancing the interests of the rich people who bought, paid for them and owned them under the cover of "fighting communism" rather than fighting any real communist threat. This was done by overthrowing democratically elected governments and instituting dictatorships that served the economic interests of the people who owned the republicans. .

Name an instance.

 

[KCConservative]

This disrespecting trash is not from the makers of Monopoly.

 

[jfuh]

Name an instance.

Jack Abramoff, Enron, Haliburton and Tom Delay.

 

[jfuh]

This disrespecting trash is not from the makers of Monopoly.

You really take offence to something like this huh? No sense of humor I see.