Check out this fundraising appeal from Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
Or just look at the part I'm quoting here:
I believe the only way to take back our freedom is to return to the constitutional principles our founding fathers promised in 1776. It’s upon those principles I announced my conservative alternative to President Obama’s liberal healthcare plan just yesterday.
I can’t do all this alone. That’s why I launched my Club 2010 team of Internet activists to help propel my re-election campaign. Just last week we received $5,000 from donors giving $17.76. I trust that conservative activists are willing to stand behind the ideas I’ve been pushing in Washington, so I’ve set a loft goal of raising $17,760 in $17.76 increments over the next five days.
Chalisseurs, what's the problem with this? (Aside from the proofreading error.)
CC
11 comments:
The problem is that only 281.531 people have donated so far. So they need another 718.468 people to donate in the next 5 days. And while they seem to have originally found .531 of a person to donate, I am highly doubtful they'll find .468 of a person to match.
Interesting point, though it wasn't what I had in mind.
Let's see. It assumes that for this second amount of $ 17,760, the unit donation (donation for each donor)the first day is 2x $ 17.76, increasing by $ 17.76 per unit donation on each of four subsequent days. If you want to get $ 17,760 in addition to the first $ 5,000, then you need only 50 donors each day, for a total of 250 more donors (assuming they are different), as opposed to the 281.53 donors for the first
$ 5,000. That gets you integral donors. At least that is one way to read the arithmetic (I think).
Another interesting point, but again you're barking up the wrong tree as far as the mistake I'm looking for is concerned.
the revolution may have been underway in 1776, but the constitutional convention wasn't until 1787.
Bingo!
He could be talking about the principles promised in the Articles of Confederation? That was started in 1776, although I don't think it was completed until 1777. It is technically a constitution.
No power of the Congress to tax, no executive branch, Shay's rebellion. Could be exactly what he is talking about.
That's it! He is suggesting removing the Constitution, and returning to the Articles of Confederation!!!!!
:)
You are ever the optimist about the human nature, N.
CC
A lot of people confuse the Declaration and Constitution. Conservatives tend to believe that the Constitution includes a reference to God; liberals tend to believe that it includes a reference to the Pursuit of Happiness.
The Constitution is a rorschach test in so many ways.
"Conservatives tend to believe that the Constitution includes a reference to God;..." What about "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." It doesn't mean anything, but it IS a reference to God.
Joel wrote:
-snip-
"What about 'Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...' It doesn't mean anything, but it IS a reference to God."
Well -- they hadn't invented the "CE" (common era) and "BCE" (before common era) alternatives to AD and BC by 1776.
It is a reference to common calendar but I don't think one can read any theological meaning from it.
To do so would be akin to saying one follows the old Norse or the old Anglo-Saxon religions because one uses the calendar conventions from Norse or Anglo-Saxon mythology in naming the days of the week (e.g. Wednesday, Thursday, Friday).
One could follow the Quaker convention and call today (Friday) "Sixth Day" to preclude the pagan god reference in the weekday name.
Post a Comment