Those Who Don't Know History Are Destined To Repeat It.......

[Zam-Zam]

.....at least, according to Edmund Burke.

I confess I'm a bit of a history buff, and always a bit disappointed when some supposedly education person demonstrates ignorance of something I assumed was widely known. To wit:


“I actually write about Rahm in the book,” Clinton said. “I asked him not to read it before we sat and did our interview! But it was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”


Most of us know, or should know, that Abraham Lincoln was never a senator, from Illinois or any other state. He lost that election to Stephen A. Douglas.


It's a minor point for many I know, but I do wish more Americans knew a bit more about their history.

 

[LEONIDAS]

.....at least, according to Edmund Burke.

I confess I'm a bit of a history buff, and always a bit disappointed when some supposedly education person demonstrates ignorance of something I assumed was widely known. To wit:

“I actually write about Rahm in the book,” Clinton said. “I asked him not to read it before we sat and did our interview! But it was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”




Most of us know, or should know, that Abraham Lincoln was never a senator, from Illinois or any other state. He lost that election to Stephen A. Douglas.


It's a minor point for many I know, but I do wish more Americans knew a bit more about their history.

My theory of repeating history is when a culture ignores the truth, they then suffer from it's wrath. And I see the far left/liberal/socialists "re-writing" history to their liking. Therefore "will be forced to relive their false history, because they IGNORED the truth that put them in that situation. Case in point,,, we will almost certainly collapse from within (just as Ancient Rome did) because they too over spent, and handed out food rations until the country went broke. Then they had several other disasters happen, but all were in direct correlation to "being broke". And the empire was disbanded. (* I see this happening to America, being broken into several factions because of all the lies and history re-writing, we will never be able to live together as we once did because of what this administration is doing to everyone right now!) Congrats,,,, but Obama was completely successful in fuc*ing up this country forever!

 

[BitterPill]

.....at least, according to Edmund Burke.

I confess I'm a bit of a history buff, and always a bit disappointed when some supposedly education person demonstrates ignorance of something I assumed was widely known. To wit:

“I actually write about Rahm in the book,” Clinton said. “I asked him not to read it before we sat and did our interview! But it was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”


Most of us know, or should know, that Abraham Lincoln was never a senator, from Illinois or any other state. He lost that election to Stephen A. Douglas.


It's a minor point for many I know, but I do wish more Americans knew a bit more about their history.

It's remarkably minor. So minor I wouldn't bother getting disappointed. I mean, so what if Clinton [Hillary or Bill, your lack of link makes it difficult to know] is destined to make the same mistake.

I suspect this has more to do with Clinton-hate than disappointment anyway.

 

[Zam-Zam]

It's remarkably minor. So minor I wouldn't bother getting disappointed. I mean, so what if Clinton [Hillary or Bill, your lack of link makes it difficult to know] is destined to make the same mistake.

I suspect this has more to do with Clinton-hate than disappointment anyway.

It was Hillary, mea culpa. It doesn't make her a bad person I agree. It does make her look just a bit foolish, and could have easily been avoided.

It's good to know your nation's history, particularly when you aspire to seek political office.

For the record, I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I don't hate anyone, and don't quite understand what could possibly be gained by hating a stranger. I do know that many do, but that seems like such a foolish waste of energy.

 

[Boltlady]

.....at least, according to Edmund Burke.

I confess I'm a bit of a history buff, and always a bit disappointed when some supposedly education person demonstrates ignorance of something I assumed was widely known. To wit:

“I actually write about Rahm in the book,” Clinton said. “I asked him not to read it before we sat and did our interview! But it was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”


Most of us know, or should know, that Abraham Lincoln was never a senator, from Illinois or any other state. He lost that election to Stephen A. Douglas.


It's a minor point for many I know, but I do wish more Americans knew a bit more about their history.

That's what happens when those who would be prez try to speak without a teleprompter.

 

[BitterPill]

It was Hillary, mea culpa. It doesn't make her a bad person I agree. It does make her look just a bit foolish, and could have easily been avoided.

It's good to know your nation's history, particularly when you aspire to seek political office.

For the record, I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I don't hate anyone, and don't quite understand what could possibly be gained by hating a stranger. I do know that many do, but that seems like such a foolish waste of energy.

I suppose her editor is in for some of your 'disappointment', not knowing Lincoln was never a Senator.

That was your out. You could have made it about the editor and still displayed the Clinton-hate though surreptitiously.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

 

[Charcat]

It's remarkably minor. So minor I wouldn't bother getting disappointed. I mean, so what if Clinton [Hillary or Bill, your lack of link makes it difficult to know] is destined to make the same mistake.

I suspect this has more to do with Clinton-hate than disappointment anyway.

Actually, I would really prefer people who run for political office have a good background in American history...it certainly couldn't hurt.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I suppose her editor is in for some of your 'disappointment', not knowing Lincoln was never a Senator.

That was your out. You could have made it about the editor and still displayed the Clinton-hate though surreptitiously.

What editor? She made the quote herself.

The hate you refer to may exist in your mind, but no where in reality. It's quite possible you will be unable to see it that way, however. That's fine of course, since it doesn't matter. Believe whatever makes you happiest.

 

[RickWA]

It was Hillary, mea culpa. It doesn't make her a bad person I agree. It does make her look just a bit foolish, and could have easily been avoided.

It's good to know your nation's history, particularly when you aspire to seek political office.

For the record, I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I don't hate anyone, and don't quite understand what could possibly be gained by hating a stranger. I do know that many do, but that seems like such a foolish waste of energy.

Hatred damages the originator more than the target. Good call.

 

[Zam-Zam]

"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

Pithy! I wish I would have thought of that.....

 

[Zam-Zam]

Hatred damages the originator more than the target. Good call.

You put it much more succinctly than I was able to, nicely done.

 

[BitterPill]

What editor? She made the quote herself.

I assure you she had an editor. I'd even venture a friendly wager if you are willing.

The hate you refer to may exist in your mind, but no where in reality. It's quite possible you will be unable to see it that way, however. That's fine of course, since it doesn't matter. Believe whatever makes you happiest.

Then again, the hate may exist in your mind just as it does in reality. I mean, there is no denying many hate Hillary and have for some time. They expose that hate by attacking and deriding Hillary with little justification much as you did.

With that in mind, I'm going to believe what I want as you so graciously allowed.

Thanks.

 

[Dawg]

.....at least, according to Edmund Burke.

I confess I'm a bit of a history buff, and always a bit disappointed when some supposedly education person demonstrates ignorance of something I assumed was widely known. To wit:

“I actually write about Rahm in the book,” Clinton said. “I asked him not to read it before we sat and did our interview! But it was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”


Most of us know, or should know, that Abraham Lincoln was never a senator, from Illinois or any other state. He lost that election to Stephen A. Douglas.


It's a minor point for many I know, but I do wish more Americans knew a bit more about their history.

and they pay $Millions$ for such ignorance ...........did Lincoln visit all 57 states?

 

[BitterPill]

and they pay $Millions$ for such ignorance ...........did Lincoln visit all 57 states?

That's Obama-hate, not Hillary-hate.

 

[Dawg]

It's remarkably minor. So minor I wouldn't bother getting disappointed. I mean, so what if Clinton [Hillary or Bill, your lack of link makes it difficult to know] is destined to make the same mistake.

I suspect this has more to do with Clinton-hate than disappointment anyway.

not to a history buff is it 'what difference does it make'..................look, some kids may read this book and think Abe was a Senator.......wrong should be corrected.......before book came/comes out........no wonder kids are graduating HS and can't read above 3rd grade levels or at all...........i.e. UNC

 

[middleview]

It's remarkably minor. So minor I wouldn't bother getting disappointed. I mean, so what if Clinton [Hillary or Bill, your lack of link makes it difficult to know] is destined to make the same mistake.

I suspect this has more to do with Clinton-hate than disappointment anyway.

actually, Lincoln was a congressman and a candidate for senator.....

 

[Dawg]

I suppose her editor is in for some of your 'disappointment', not knowing Lincoln was never a Senator.

That was your out. You could have made it about the editor and still displayed the Clinton-hate though surreptitiously.

How many know the editor compared to those that know Hill__________the editor didn't write it or vet it.........evidently

 

[Zam-Zam]

I assure you she had an editor. I'd even venture a friendly wager if you are willing.



Then again, the hate may exist in your mind just as it does in reality. I mean, there is no denying many hate Hillary and have for some time. They expose that hate by attacking and deriding Hillary with little justification much as you did.

With that in mind, I'm going to believe what I want as you so graciously allowed.

Thanks.

An editor for her book, certainly. That has nothing to do with whether or not the former Secretary of State knew that Lincoln never served in the Senate. She apparently did not, and that's her fault, not her editor's. Her comment was made while doing an interview about the book.

You may, of course, believe whatever you wish to believe. It won't affect me, or reality, or anything. It will forever be of no consequence, so you might as well indulge yourself.

 

[Zam-Zam]

actually, Lincoln was a congressman and a candidate for senator.....

He an for the Senate against Stephen A. Douglas, a Democrat. Douglas prevailed.