The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Glad I moved the majority of my assets into my MM and commodities. Will get back into stock and mutual funds after Obama leaves office.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/19/investing/stocks-markets/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Your buddy gave you some advice today.


Have fun, buy ammo,ha ha ha

Why ammo? Expecting a revolution or something? Zombie apocalypse?

did everything start to slide?  Last I saw just the tech sector shit itself and that had mostly to do with the fact that google leaked their own report.

Are we back on the legislation by Dow Jones kick again?

DJIA on day Obama took office: 7,949
DJIA at close on Friday: 13,343

Obviously Obama has ruined the stock market.

i would argue that Obama has been the single best president in the history of the country if we're measuring by stock market value

Because like last time Obama was elected, guns and ammo went through the roof. With his comments the other night it will only be worse this time.

My sis in law sold her house about 5 yrs. ago and made about 150K. She put every penny in gold. I didn't say anything but thought she was crazy to put all her assets in one area. Think she paid about 600 an ounce. Check chart to see what it is today. lol

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au3650nyb.html

This gold talk is interesting since I recently found...well, gold. My dad bought a lot of gold and silver when I was born. They're in the form of coins, but solid metal. An ounce each. I stuck them away and never thought about them thinking they were junk. Maybe I'd make them into jewelry or whatever.

Turns out they're solid gold and silver. An ounce each. Not a lot, but small nest egg. I had them appraised and put them in a safe deposit box.

I'm hoping to sell them and put $$$ down on a cute cottage.

Good for you girl. I have some myself. I have not tried to liquidate it (sell), but the word I have gotten from my S-I-L is the commission is very high. I would shop around and do some research.

Here in AZ. people still pan for gold in the mountain streams. Next time I am hiking and see a pan handler I will ask them where he sells and what he pays. 

Gold is a good investment, but it's all about diversifying.  Stock market is great for he Long term, too.

FDR obviously stomps him (and everyone else).  But he's doing pretty good:

(http://www.bespokeinvest.com/storage/First%20Three%20Yearsa.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1327335796113)

Ha, ha, ha, classic twisting and spinning of reality. Obama could crash Air Force One into the White House and you people would find a way to say that he saved money on maintenance and cleaning costs.

It's all a propped up illusion, a con game. From Jan 2009 to the present, from the bottom of that hole to today looks like a huge increase in a short time. It's a recovery, not an increase, and that it’s based on the fed’s printing $3t and the treasury borrowing $4t, that part is hardly worth mentioning I guess. Obama came in when the stock market was near its low. It had nowhere to go but up. Much of its rise is due to companies improving their bottom line by becoming more efficient, leaner, and oftentimes, firing and laying people off. He can’t take credit for one without getting credit for the other. There is something screwy and suspicious about the stock market being so very disconnected from unemployment and weak consumer spending. Fortunately, I'm back to where I was pre-recession and have just had my money parked for the past year. The party is not going to last if employment doesn’t start going up, and sooner rather than later or it's gonna crash and burn again. Only this time it's gonna be a lot worse. Obama may not have been responsible for what has happened up to 2008-2009, but as far as I’m concerned, he owns it now.

It’s like the guy down the street enjoying his new Porsche he just bought on credit, right up to the week when it’s repossessed and he's hauled into court. Celebrate, it’s great with all these food stamps and debt! The numbers prove it, woo hoo !!!

Because uninformed morons wrongly assumed he was going to ban everything, and as of yet has done not one thing to limit weapons or ammunition. Even if he gets re-elected, the chances that any major legislation makes it through the House and Senate is slim-to-none.

So in other words, we should not take the rise and fall of the stock market as an indication as to how well a President is doing his job.

Unless the stock market goes down 200 points in one day.  Then we should create threads like these to shout about how it's because of the guy currently sitting in the Oval Office.

Funny how the same thing seems to be happening with oil prices too. Demand is down bot domestically and globally, and we have a glut of gasoline in this country, yet there always seems to be something coming up that drives up both oil and gas prices quickly, and keeps them up. It goes against the laws of supply and demand.

Well, the other night, he did state that he wanted to ban assault rifles, ie semi automatic rifles. I guess that I would counter that there uninformed morons wrongly assumed that Obama was going to pay their bills after he was elected. Like the POS in this video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc).

At $4 a gallon, jokes on her, ha ha ha. I think that I would rather be an uniformed moron that errs on the side of caution of what the government is going to take from me. Than be an uniformed moron depending on the government to put gas in my car. Oh the irony, when hope and change instantly transforms into hopeless and the same old shit the week after the election. 

Anyhow, what does any of that have to do with what we're talking about. It doesn't matter why it happened, all that matters is that it happened and that it will certainly happen again. So stock up on guns and ammo now boys and girls, they might not be affordable or maybe even available soon !!!

You can judge how well the president is doing anyhow you like. Stock market, Bin Ladin, Fast and Furious, the Libyan debacle, the color of his skin, how many stars in the sky, etc etc. It don't matter.The stock market is being propped up by Helicopter Ben Bernanke and his QE tactics and businesses being in "panic" mode. Overall, people lost hugely on real estate, and net worth is still way down. And so is employment and economic growth.

Make no mistake, if something economically positive is going on, rest assured the press will attribute it to Obama. If something negative is going on, it will be chalked up to the Bush legacy. That is the scam. No one should be surprised at this point.

Cool story bro ??

Yeah...I have no idea how to go about selling. For now, I'm just sitting on them.

THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! To be President Romney has already said that Bernanke is history 5 minutes after he takes oath! Never thought I would miss Greenspan.

Of course.. other than the fact that presidents can't fire a federal reserve governor or the head of the board of governors.. he'd totally fire Bernake... except he can't .. so there's that.

You mean the comment where he said he supports the second amendment?

And then turned around 30 seconds later and babbled about an assault rifle ban. Talk about an idiot talking out of both sides of his mouth. We already tried that ban between 94-04 and how did that work our ? I'll tell you, it failed miserably. So what's the point ? Seems that he was supporting a handgun ban in Chicago also. Obama's a gun grabber plain and simple.

Romney had an assault weapons ban in MA while governor. If you want a talking point you better find a better one.

Okay, let me try.  We should vote for Rmoney because he will repeal Obamacare, leaving Mass the only state with comprehensive health care for its citizen.

(Hmm...maybe that isn't the best one.) 

I can only believe that if our founding fathers had been able to look past their flintlock muskets and bowie knives to see some of the crazy weapons that future generations would create in an effort to kill more people with greater efficiency, they may have expanded that section a wee bit.


Yeah, give something extremely complicated a nice easy "fun to say and bounces off the tongue" label like gun grabber...there's a good way to get more of the simple-minded on board. When you get enough of the simple-minded together, don't forget to hand out torches and pitchforks...mobs love torches and pitchforks.

Aw hell, ditch the torches and pitchforks and just arm the idiots with machine guns and night vision goggles...

What does that have to do with the prices of firearms and ammo rising after Obama was elected last time or when it certainly will if he is elected this time ? See you're arguing a moot point, it has already happened with Obama after the last election. And since he actually came out and said what he said, it will surely happen again. Romney said he was in "not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal". Besides legislation like this should be left up to the states and not the federal idiots. That goes for health care too. So you see, as far as I am concerned there is no contradiction. The states should decide for themselves if these are the kinds of laws they want to pass for their citizens.

And it turned out to be simple minded people scared for nothing since Obama did not address guns in the sightest over four years.

None of that is anything but your pure conjecture. I could counter that the founding fathers fully intended for the citizens to have the exact same type of firearms as the government in order to prevent the tyranny of a corrupt government upon its citizens.

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. The term "assault weapon" is a made up political term that is meant to scare the public. Most of the so called "assault weapons" are nothing more than semi automatic rifles that look like their military counterparts, they are in no way selective fire. Shit, most semi automatic hunting rifles are of a higher caliber than the so called assault rifles. Nothing but silly propaganda bullshit.

So if the assault weapon ban was a failure the last time, what is the point doing it again ?


Who are the idiots ?

And those simple minded people were right because he confirmed everyone's suspicions in the 2nd debate. So it should be even more of a frenzy this time if he wins.

If by no way being selective fire you meanthey don't have the switch you are correct. But they can easily be manipulated to become fully automatic. I am a gun owner and have shot many of these so called assault weapons. I agree the ban is useless (all it banned was the manufacture of new weapons, old ones were still allowed) but I just want to point out your talking points are BS.

There are thousands legal items that can be "manipulated" into illegal dangerous ones. You gonna ban them all ? So, you have shot many of the so called semi automatic assault weapons ? Well, I have put a few together. I don't know what you're talking about, but it's "truly" BS. They are not manipulated as easy as you say, the receivers need to be reworked. The parts are very expensive and the part itself needs the required class III permits and stamp taxes to be transferred. Not worth the headache or the hassle.

Are you saying that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed rebellion against our democratically-elected government?

There is no provision in the Constitution that allows for citizens to legally take up arms against the government.  And the Supreme Court established in Texas vs. White (1869) that secession is illegal.  Furthermore, the Second Amendment mentions nothing about the right of people to overthrow the government by force.

So how can it possibly be that the Second Amendment is intended to facilitate illegal, unconstitutional armed rebellion?  This talking point from the so-called patriots of the right always perplexes me.

Then again, when you have GOP congressional candidates (in the general election!) openly stating that if they don't win at the ballot box, they may have to resort to the bullet box (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/catherine-crabill-va-gop_n_235459.html), this gives you an idea of the kind of "democracy" they are in favor of.

I never said the second amendment said that ? I re-framed Sunstrokes imaginary assumptions of what he thought the founding fathers meant. It was my pointless conjecture to counter Sunstrokes pointless conjecture. Neither of which are based in reality.  If he can add assumptions, we all can. Really go back and read and you may get it !!!

However, what happens if civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad ? I never used the words armed rebellion against the government. I said prevent tyranny, not overthrow of a corrupt government. That, in so many words, means "protection from". When talking gun control and history, governments have murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals. How did this happen ? The governments had the power and the civilians, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed, due to gun control. So you see there is a difference between a violent overthrow of a government and protection from the government as a last resort.

So Spiderdan, how would you feel if you lived in one of the many countries in the past that had murdered it's civilian population after banning firearms ?


And when you have blacks using social media to say that they are going to riot if Obama doesn't win, it kind of gives you an idea of the kind of "republic" they are in favor of !!!!

Perhaps I have unfairly inferred extra meaning into your post.

Tell me, what precisely are you talking about when you speak of firearm ownership "in order to prevent the tyranny of a corrupt government upon its citizens"?  Please be specific, because that sounds like armed rebellion to me.

Please explain how you can use firearms in your possession to prevent tyrannical government without raising arms against the government.

Armed insurrection against the United States government is illegal and unconstitutional under any circumstances.  There are 11 states that can speak to this fact with authority.

Surely you recognize a difference between random black people on Facebook and an official Republican Party nominee for the United States House of Representatives?

I didn't cite some random wack job on Stormfront; I cited a GOP-nominated candidate for Congress.  Apples to apples, please.

Protection from the government if specifically and precisely what I am talking about. I think that I clearly addressed that in my last post. Do you need countries, political leaders, dates when guns were banned, number murdered by their government, and other assorted statistics ? Google is your friend  ;)



The difference is that your link only cited one person that said, "bullet box" as a reference as opposed to many colored people actively threatening to riot on several social media outlets if Obama is not re elected . The latter is much more likely to happen than the former.

The fact that she is a politician means nothing in the greater scheme of things. There are several whackjob politicians on both sides that say stupid things...

BTW, you never answered my question:

You claim that people need to own firearms to protect themselves from the government, yet seem to be denying that the only way to enact that claim is to use them to shoot agents of the government.

Why are you so hesitant to own your ideas?  Shooting government officials is exactly what armed rebellion is; no more, no less.

I'm not much interested in discussion what other countries did and what their system of government was.  I am talking specifically about the United States of America and its Constitution.  Armed rebellion is unconstitutional, and the Second Amendment makes no provision for it (nor does any other part of the Constitution).

Don't like the way the government is acting?  The Constitution has democratic methods for redress of your grievances.  Don't want to follow those methods?  Then you are acting in an unconstitutional manner.  Just own it.

Find me a Democratic nominee for Congress that advocates armed insurrection against the government if the election doesn't go their way (preferably one in the 21st century).  And in case you were thinking of claiming this as an isolated incident, Sharron Angle (2010 GOP nominee for U.S. Senate) was talking about "Second Amendment remedies" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html) to "the Harry Reid problems" 2 years ago.

The fact that you think random internet crazies are equivalent to persons running for Congress is absurd.  If I were to take internet commentary as accurate predictors of future events, reading the comments on a Yahoo article or a Youtube video would surely prove that the apocalypse is upon us.

As for your question: name any country that murdered its civilian population and I will be happy to explain why their problems went far beyond a firearm ban.  Somalia has no regulations on firearms whatsoever... does that mean they are "better" than Canada, who has some of the most strict anti-gun laws in the world?

I haven't claimed anything about anybody shooting anyone. I will say it one more last time. I countered Suntrokes imaginary assumptions of what kind of firearms he thought the founding fathers meant. Does the constitution specify or make any provisions about what kind of arms the citizens of the US have the right to bear ? I don't see you attacking his point of view. He is making unfounded statements about the second amendments and presuming what the founding fathers meant with only speculation. Go argue with him, I have no time for your ignorance and stupidity.



What the fuck are you talking about? I am using my own ideas and my own words You on the other hand, are the only one in this thread using the words "shooting government agents" and "armed rebellion" ? Isn't that right ? YOU ARE WRONG AND IT IS SO FUNNY WATCHING YOUR SILLY ASS SQUIRM AND TRY TO TWIST PEOPLES WORDS TO FIT YOUR AGENDAS. YOU ARE PATHETIC KID !!!


If you are not much interested in discussion.Then go away and talk to yourself.


And what if a government was to do away with free elections or the democratic process ? What if the constitution was done away with ? No matter how remote it may be, what would you think about armed rebellion in that situation ?


Were they charged with a crime ? Yes or no is all that is needed !!!


Go give your 2 examples to Germany, the USSR, the People's Republic of China, Ottoman Turkey, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia. Extreme acts of genocide and crimes against humanity were perpetrated by governments in these places after restricting firearm ownership. Are you saying that it is 100% impossible for things like that to happen in the US ? What would you propose the civilian citizens do in a circumstance like that ?

I'd propose they stop hitting the snooze button, wake up and embrace the real world...

You say that citizens with firearms "prevents tyranny of government."

What are these citizens doing with their firearms if not using them?  Still waiting for an explanation.

No, I am translating your dog whistle code words into what they mean.  The only way firearms protect you from the government is if you use them against the government.  If you have another explanation, I'm waiting.

The "protecting against tyranny" argument is the same BS that people like Timothy McVeigh spouted before blowing up federal buildings.  Words have meaning, and you can't pretend that you're a peaceful patriot while you mumble about your guns protecting you from the government.  That's exactly the kind of rhetoric we always hear from the right after they lose an election.

You realize that the Second Amendment can be repealed in a completely democratic fashion (just like the 18th was), right?

Unlike you, I don't believe in guns as a substitute for the Constitution.  If you think the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, the courts are the constitutional avenue for redress.  If that doesn't work, then you go to the ballot box.  If the government is so thoroughly corrupted (by the thousands upon thousands of officials at local, state, and federal levels) that neither of those things work, then either:

a) the system is so hopelessly broken that shooting individual people won't make a difference (which you would see after the first few cities that our corrupted government nukes into dust)

or

b) you're a sore loser nutjob who can't handle the fact that everyone else disagrees with you

Is it seriously your position that the only problem with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union that they didn't allow their citizens to have guns?

Do you really think people who can barely afford to eat are going to mount a serious resistance to government military if only they are allowed to buy a handgun?

What the fuck does the following exchange between me and sunstroke say ?


^^^If you can't take the above exchange in context, then you are not a very bright individual. Conjecture vs conjecture, hmmmm, so fucking hard to figure out. Now answer my question. Does the constitution say anything about what kind of arms that the people have the right to bear ?



An armed civilian population protects against "tyranny or government" because it acts as a deterrent. In the unlikely event, do you honestly think that the government would try anything that remotely resembled what has happened in other countries, with an armed population of the US with as big as it is ? There are many examples, conflicts in Vietnam, Bosnia, and Chechnya offer proof that armed citizens can restrain, deter, or repel a modern army. I don't have any numbers but I would venture to say that the citizens of the US are one one of the best armed civilian populations in the world.


Good luck with that one chief, ha ha.


Is that your opinion ? Everyone that supports the 2nd amendment is a nutjob and that everyone else disagrees with them ?

You seem to be putting words in peoples mouths again. This has nothing to do with the problems of the said countries. It has everything to do with deterring the governments of those countries from killing millions of innocent citizens. The reason those governments were able to get away with killing so many innocent people is because the mass of the population had no way to fight back or protect themselves in those worst case scenarios. If those citizens were armed the governments would have thought hard about doing the things they did and the civilians would have had a fighting chance.

Yet ANOTHER horrible day on Wall Street. Just sayin!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2012/10/23/earning-worries-trigger-steep-selloff/?test=latestnews

What you think the market is gonna do the day after the election if Obama is re elected ?

badger6, rather than continue to talk in circles about exactly how you expect citizens to protect themselves from tyranny, I'll just say this:

Armed insurrection against the federal government is illegal and unconstitutional under ANY circumstances.  If, as you propose, the government has become so corrupted that the safeguards built into the Constitution no longer work, then the Constitution has completely failed and you should have no problem taking unconstitutional actions to replace it by force.

Just like the South tried to.

Actually they just tried leaving, completely different than replacing.

Exactly.  The North took up arms against them to bring them back.  The key for the South was to fight a defensive war because they couldn't replace their soldiers and the North could.  The biggest mistake they made was trying (and failing) to take Gettysburg as that turned the tide of the war.

Semantics.  "Leaving" (while continuing to occupy the same land) is an attempt to replace the government in that area.  The land that the CSA tried to claim was under the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution.

I don't know if this is Florida (i.e. the South) talking, but you know who fired first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter), right?

This country was founded as a federation of independent and sovereign states based on the power of the people. These states delegated a limited degree of power and authority to a central government. Certain states simply wanted to dissolve their union that they voluntarily entered into. States RETAIN all rights NOT delegated to the federal government. The people RETAIN all rights not delegated to the state or to the federal governments. Hence the following :


Also




The federal government, after being told, did not vacate the land of an independent, free, and sovereign state. Subsequently they were fired upon for their non compliance.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  If I come home to find someone I don't know in my house, and they don't leave when I tell them to, I will fire on them as well. 

And if they happen to be cops or the FBI or any other person who might have a good reason to be there, you might be going to prison. Just sayin'.  ;)

You better watch your mouth, here comes federal government sympathizer Spiderdan. Just like Steven Seagal twists his opponents bones into dust, Spider will twist your words into an entirely new meaning unknown to you.

Oh, we're flat-out defending the Confederacy now?

Wrong.  Secession is unconstitutional; if you want to exit the Union, you need to get 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment (to let you leave), then get 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.  Don't like those terms?  Tough.  That's what you signed up for when you joined the Union.  Every state in this republic either ratified the original Constitution or applied for statehood under it.

South Carolina (or any other state, or combination of them) cannot unilaterally declare themselves to be a sovereign and free nation.

P.S. You probably shouldn't cite anything before 1789 as proof of any point worth making.  We had a government (under the Articles of Confederation) in which states had complete sovereignty and could do whatever the hell they wanted.  It was a complete and total failure.

Of course I'm defending states rights. All states rights, not limited to the Confederacy, but including the Confederacy. I guess if you are under the false impression that slavery was the primary reason for the civil war, you might think otherwise. But to do that would be to deny the facts that show slavery was a very small part of the civil war.

I'll just assume that you're ignoring the words in the Declaration of Independence above. You know the part that says. "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them".

Or the part where Lincoln says : " they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Sure seems like the founding fathers thought that if a the people wanted to separate from their government that it was their right to do so. I'm not sure how anyone could even justify our original split from England if that wasn't the case.

As I added, we tried a government where the states could do whatever they wanted.  It failed spectacularly, which is why we got the Constitution in 1789.  As far as your point goes, the very best thing you can say is that the Declaration of Independence (which carries no force of law in the United States of America, and never has) describes the broken ideas that were tried under the Articles of Confederation.

So let's see:

- on the one hand, one time Lincoln said that people have the right to overthrow their government
- on the other hand, when American citizens tried to overthrow their government, he ordered the United States military to kill them by the thousands

Tough call.

Hey, if you want to say that the colonists were traitors to the Crown, I'd agree.

The point is that anyone who talks of armed revolt against the government is talking about unconstitutional treason and/or sedition.  Now, if you don't care for the Constitution (much like the colonists didn't much care for the Crown), you shouldn't particularly mind such a statement.  But you can't wrap yourself in the colors of Patriotic Defender of the Constitution while you simultaneously say that if you don't like how the elections are going, it's perfectly OK to shoot your way out of the Union.

You are correct.  The civil war was an armed conflict between the advocates of a strong national govement and those who advocated a weak national goverment and greater state attonomy.   

The "state rights" side lost! 

Furthermore the 14th amendment specfically weakened the states rights and gave the federal goverment greater power. 

ALL 37 of the states who were in the union in 1868 have since ratified the amendment. 

Can you point to specific language in the constitution that SPECIFICALLY prohibits secession ?



Tough call how ? Seems he said it more than one time as you claim:


Maybe "Honest" Abe wasn't so honest and a hypocrite piece of shit. Maybe he just had more guns and resources to win the war and was able to bully the states out of their rights. Maybe he was like Obama and didn't actually give a shit about black people or the issue of slavery. I suspect if the tide of the war had swung the other way, and the south would have won the war, that the issue of states rights and secession would have never been questioned.



So you agree that they were traitors. But do you agree that their decision to revolt was right or wrong ?


That begs the question. Is there a "natural right of revolution" ? That's kind of a double edged trick question. The United States seems to support other countries and their right to secede from their governments if it fits our agenda or if there is a perceived wrongdoing. So Georgia can secede from the USSR, but Georgia can't secede from the US. Kind of hypocritical don't you think. By the way, secession could exist as a peaceful condition. It doesn't have to be equal to armed revolt, treason, or sedition. I'll look forward for you to point to specific language in the constitution that SPECIFICALLY prohibits secession ?

The only thing that I would take exception with is that, the "state rights" lost. They in fact did lose the war. However, until man goes extinct this issue will never truly be won or lost. Regardless of the country or government involved, there is no way to lose the natural right of revolution. There will always be people fighting to sever ties from their government. That's the rub, everyone has different ideas regarding what they want out of life and will fight for them.

Or if you're a professor who happens to know the President, you might get invited over to the White House for a beer.   ;)

I already pointed to it.  The SCOTUS in Texas vs. White (1869) said that secession (specifically: the legislative act by the State of Texas declaring that they are no longer part of the Union) is unconstitutional.  And according to the Constitution, the SCOTUS determines what is and is not constitutional.

OK, so he said it twice.  Which is less than once for each year that he gave orders to the U.S. Army to kill rebels.

Actions speak louder than words.  While Abraham Lincoln may have believed that in theory an oppressed people have the right to revolt, he clearly didn't think that a bunch of sore losers who want to take their ball and go home when they lose a democratic election (<--- this part is important) qualified.

Losing a fair and democratic election is not "tyranny."  Being outvoted in Congress is not "tyranny."  It's 150 years later and conservatives still can't tell the difference.

It wouldn't be questioned in the CSA... unless one of their states wanted to secede because they didn't like the outcome of a vote.

I personally think it was justified; they were subjects of an autocratic monarch who exploited them without giving them input into their governance.  But this is a far cry from the whiny loser nonsense perpetrated by the hypocrites in the CSA, who (ironically enough) believed in the same kind of undemocratic rule that the colonists fought against.  They just wanted to be on the beneficial side of it this time.

It already does exist and I just explained how to do it: you amend the Constitution to allow [states x, y, and/or z] to leave.

Of course, the sore losers in the South didn't give a damn about the Constitution they signed up for, and rather than trying the Constitutionally-approved process (and failing, because their gripes were without serious merit), they chose to try to shoot their way out of the Union.

And failed miserably.