Here are some more articles from Slate with theories:

The world's leading futurologists have four theories


We could be crushed by a climate strongman


Who's most likely to secede?


Slate's "Choose Your Own Apocalypse" lets you map out the death of the United States

I totally agree. I remember how foreigners are looked at in Switzerland. It is shameful.
In the US, I never felt like an intruder or that I was stealing a job from some deserving local (I only hear that from Lou Dobbs!).

Finally, some light at the end of the tunnel:

State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing
February 5th, 2009 · 104 Comments · History, Local Issues, Politics, Rights and Liberty


You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

State legislatures can "resolve" anything they like - and frequently do. It costs nothing, ingratiates them with certain segments of their constituency and is a feckless enough gesture not to enrage the other segments.

Frankly, I wish they'd do more of that and less of the other.

States Rights have been under attack for a long time now and I am very happy to seem them coming back to the forefront. The Consititution was pretty specific in what the role of the Federal government is supposed to be and over the years the Fed has been justifying it's "creeping" expansion of control. I think California is the big hot spot right now for the reassurtion of states rights in light of the way they are addressing medical marijuana - and the possibility of decriminalizing and taxing it. Up north you have Montana reassurting their states rights based on gun control laws.

But with a country as big as the US - I really don't think you can have a one size fits all mentality. I think the losers in the states rights battle would be those who have little to no industry and who would have serious trouble if the federal financial apron strings were cut -- my own home state comes to mind. What would Michigan be doing without Government Motors right now? Then again -- why should the Federal Gov't be bailing out private industry -- slippery slopes which the Feds use to justify their creeping....

it's as 'Federal' as Federal Express...

>>>
Health Debate Produces Angry Protests, Angry Retorts

The Earth-scorching August firefight over health care has given rise to questions about the point at which stifling civil discussion damages the democratic process.

All across the country, conservative opponents are clamoring to disrupt town-hall meetings about the proposed overhaul of the nation's health care system, using GOP-generated talking points to shout down Democratic congressmen who attempt to explain the plan.

The Constitution protects their right to speak freely, but Democrats say that they are limiting rather than promoting an open exchange of ideas.
>>>

I predict that the administration will start trying to silence these voices...I'm not sure what form this will take, but I feel like I've never felt before that our First Amendment rights (in particular, the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly) are at risk.

Morg

Guess you slept through Bush?

Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at Rallies

The American Conservative - "Free Speech Zone"

Freedom of Speech in Government Science

and then we can't forget the Patriot Act. The Impact of the USA PATRIOT Act: An Update

I could give countless more examples and articles.

Bush at least let the people be heard, even if they weren't right up in the politicians' faces. The protestors were not stopped - they were simply moved away from the action. The media coverage of these events was intense and ongoing. Their messages were heard.

On the other hand, Obama is already taking steps to put forth the idea that the health care protestors are "sabotaging" the democratic process. What's next? Arrests?

Top Democrat denounces health care protests

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/..._care_overhaul

WASHINGTON – The Senate's most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party's lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas — and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to "sabotage" the democratic process.

Morg

And let's not forget, I am stating an opinion here based on a very subjective feeling. I feel that the current administration is going to attempt to shut down these protests by infringing upon our first amendment rights. The previous administration is irrelevant in this case.

Unless Evilshell you support Obama aping Bush's speech-repression tactics? I.e., what's good for the goose is good for the soon-to-be-lame-duck?

Morg

[quote=Morgannon;513964]Bush at least let the people be heard, even if they weren't right up in the politicians' faces. The protestors were not stopped - they were simply moved away from the action. The media coverage of these events was intense and ongoing. Their messages were heard.

Not when it came to protests against invading Iraq or when it came to contracts.
It kind of blew up in Cheney's face-well the Halliburton lawyer's face, when Cheney invited all the Halliburton cronies over to a shoot. Talk about no-bid contracts.


Nor did we get an say in this:


http://psychrights.org/articles/LevineLillyandBush.htm

I would agree. It's as silly to think of "America ending" as it is to think of France ending.

As a side note, I feel that many Americans and Europeans of various countries have a difficult time understanding the internal politics of each others' countries. The US is vastly different from the European nations in its history, its values, its size, lifestyle, its politics, its population, etc.

[quote=hoppy;513972] Hoppy, the message got out, otherwise noone would have known about any of this stuff. You're supporting my argument with your post.

Morg

to try and make a distinction between Conservative and Liberal in a political sense is pointless when both groups serve the same special interest groups
CFR
Trilateral comission
Bilderburg group etc.
when people get annoyed with republican president you get a democrat when people get annoyed with democrat you get another republican. This bi-partisan smokescreen is beginning to thin and the people are showing their digust not just to democrats at these meetings but Republicans are geting it too.
The difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush could not get away with half the stuff that Obama the slick car salesman can...
creat order out of chaos....i mean it even says it on your money...
create a crisis then appear as the saviour...

with the "credit card crisis" still to come (many so called "gurus" believe that this will be even worst than the "immo crisis") is difficult to predict how America's story will ends. but in theory, is possible to foresee a never-seen- before level of misery. if the survival instinct of the millions of system excluded americans still exists, why not to think in a new civil war?

Together, you two have illustrated a point I have maintained here for some time: Any "difference" or "change" between GOP or Dem control of either the White House or Congress is negligible. The talk is different, but not the walk. What was Bush's imperialism abroad and creeping statism at home are now Obama's. Not enough will change to really make a dime's worth of difference between the two members of the bipartisan monopoly.

Not with a bang, but with a wimple.

So agree, on the other hand, I believe this is the nature of any stable democracy. Though, there is more parties in other systems, I do not see big changes ever really happening anywhere. Change is usually very slow to happen in a democracy absent revolution (which implies loss of stability usually)

I think that's very much the way of it - you can measure the difference
in small fractions of percents of GDP between one party's policies and the
other's.
.

Fair point - politics as usual will remain politics as usual, for the most part. And I do think our system works best when neither party has a majority in any branch of government.

I still will vote Republican because I believe in Republican ideals, but I am more Libertarian than anything. However, I'll never vote libertarian because I do see it as "throwing away my vote"...we need more parties in the system!

Trouble is, I doubt we will see anything like that happen because the first party that fractures gives up its power. It'd have to be a simultaneous split of the parties, and how realistic would that be?

Not very