C: "Bush will be president until he dies"

[MrGullible]

Is it really that important to track the C's "hit rate"? It seems to me where that could lead would be detrimental to objectivity.

First off, I also have the strong wish for the C's to be right, and just have the answers given and the pieces put together. So I pay attention to any mention of the C's hit rate, too.

But, do you think that building some kind of faith in what the C's predict, based on their past performance, could alter our thinking and perceptions to artificially guide us to conclusions or actions? I do because it could lead me to less scrutiny and verification of each thing they say and I am already somehow internally prone to take it as fact and "the truth".

 

[PepperFritz]

I think it's becoming pretty obvious that this is a "prediction" that has not panned out. As the C's remind us, there are many variables in play that make the future "open". It would be interesting to know what they might say about this now, whether they would be able to specify the "variable" that has resulted in Bush bowing out of the picture. Guess we won't know unless Laura asks them at some point....

 

[Beau]

My guess is the C's were being very literal. Meaning, Dubya will be called "President Bush" until he dies, which is true. The media and journalists will generally refer to previous presidents in this manner. While it's true he will not "be president" until he dies, he certainly will be referred to by that title a lot.

 

[Gimpy]

I think it's becoming pretty obvious that this is a "prediction" that has not panned out. As the C's remind us, there are many variables in play that make the future "open". It would be interesting to know what they might say about this now, whether they would be able to specify the "variable" that has resulted in Bush bowing out of the picture. Guess we won't know unless Laura asks them at some point....

I'm not convinced it was a prediction at all. :/

I mean, even Nixon was referred to as "former President Nixon" to the day he died. If you can read GB's comments about his presidency, he's convinced he was a great president, and he'll stay convinced of it as long as it suits his agenda. If the agenda changes, I'm sure he will too.

Of all the things to ask the C's about, why this?



Oops! Sorry Pinkerton, I hit post right before I saw the red warning thingy.

 

[Laura]

Well, we can speculate all over the place because we want the Cs to be "right" all the time, but that's really kind of a waste of time. IF there is some sort of hidden meaning there, we won't know it until it is revealed. Heck, for all we know, Bush died a few years ago and they replaced him with a double. But that's really getting into wild theories! Beyond that, I would say that either the Cs were just plain wrong, or there was something that happened that changed the outcome.

I think that the chances of the Zio-cons making a move for total overt take-over and world domination have been pretty good over the past 8 years. But something may have shifted along the way... and they shifted their plans accordingly.

We don't yet know how deep in the doo Obama is; to me he is still a cipher. There are lots of signs that it is just "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." and we also have an idea that the POTUS is not really in charge anyway. So, if Obama thinks he's really gonna BE president like Kennedy thought, well... we'll see how long that lasts.

It's been one heck of a ride for the past 8 years and I think it ain't over yet...

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

I heard this on the french radio RFI. Translated it states that G.W Bush is going to work after his retreat as president on installing a ´Library´ and a ´Institute for liberty´ to promote democracy. In the spoken version on the radio it was further elaborated that he also intends to use this institute to promote further his agenda and policies. (whatever that means).

this is from the website of this french radio.

Le président américain sortant, George W. Bush, va créer une "bibliothèque" et un "Institut de la liberté" pour promouvoir la démocratie lorsqu'il aura quitté la Maison Blanche en janvier, a déclaré son épouse Laura Bush, citée dimanche par un quotidien péruvien. © Gamma

Que fera George W. Bush lorsqu’il aura quitté la Maison-Blanche ? Son épouse, Laura, vient d’esquisser ce qui pourrait être la nouvelle vie du couple dans les pages du quotidien péruvien Comercio.
"Le président bâtira une bibliothèque à Dallas - où nous allons nous installer - et un Institut de la liberté", a indiqué Laura Bush, alors que son époux participait au 16e sommet du forum de coopération économique Asie-Pacifique (APEC), à Lima au Pérou.
Laura Bush, ex-enseignante, a déclaré qu'elle voulait revenir à l'éducation mais aussi "travailler pour les droits des femmes en Afghanistan". George W. Bush, qui a plaisanté pendant le sommet de l'Apec sur sa "retraite forcée" pour qualifier la fin de son mandat, doit céder son fauteuil présidentiel le 20 janvier prochain au démocrate Barack Obama.
Les médias américains ont déjà fait état de ses projets de bibliothèque présidentielle, évoquant davantage un musée qu'une bibliothèque présentant une collection de documents et de cadeaux accumulés par George W.Bush au cours de ses deux mandats et d'"Institut de la Liberté". Selon le magazine américain "The Week", George W.Bush aurait en outre l'intention de donner des conférences, une activité très lucrative.

Interesting in this quote is that it also mentions that G.W Bush joked in an APEC meeting that his retirement was ´forced´.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

Hi,

FWIW, I also think what the C’s meant by “Bush will be president until he dies” was meant as in he will be president because that’s what every US president is called even after death. Even George Washington is still referred to as President and he has been dead for over two hundred years.

Though after reading this thread, I recalled another thread where someone was awfully tense about the C’s indication that the “world will end” by 2012, and what oh what it means if that’s not the case.

It seems to me, that a crucial concept keeps getting forgotten, which is as the C’s say “The future is always open.” This statement puts in perspective how much our reality is always changing and to not what we expect most of the time. It also made me wonder how many people really take what the C’s say as complete truth or that it must mean something if they are wrong. Well what if they are? Everyone can be wrong in many different degrees. It doesn’t mean they have not been right before, and it doesn’t mean they will not be right or wrong again in the future.

Another thing is that, from what I have seen many times; the C’s are very cryptic/symbolic in many of the statements they make. A lot of the things they say are not literal and most of the time need a lot of verification and research. And another thing is that, they speak to Laura, mostly because she is the chaneller and the researcher. So, sometimes what they have to say is for her ears/understanding only. So she can connect the dots, so to speak. That’s at least my impression.

I guess what I’m trying to say with this post is that, people should take their own initiative and whether the C’s are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, it doesn’t really matter. Perhaps it would be better to think of the C’s transcripts as a set of guide lines. And perhaps, we should all take a step back and think what our lives would be like without those guidelines and how we would go on, if they chose to stop contacting Laura or something. (And please understand this is just a hypothetical suggestion) Does it mean that you should stop your research and the Work? Will you abandon all you have learned because the C’s were ‘wrong’? Or because the C’s won’t talk back? Or do you press on? Fighting to understand the truth and your BEing till the day you have taken your last breath.

Just some thoughts I really wanted to get out…

 

[MrGullible]

Just some thoughts I really wanted to get out…

Well said. Sometimes it sometimes seems like what they say is sort of cabalistic if I understand the term correctly. I much prefer reading what they have to say in context with Laura's interpretation and understanding.

 

[Buddy]

Hi everyone,

Is it really that important to track the C's "hit rate"? It seems to me where that could lead would be detrimental to objectivity.

I guess what I’m trying to say with this post is that, people should take their own initiative and whether the C’s are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, it doesn’t really matter. Perhaps it would be better to think of the C’s transcripts as a set of guide lines.

The above two quotes seem to sum up my feeling on the issue.

Since the scientific method (testing and validating) is the ground of this experiment in superluminal communication, the observation that a prediction seems to have failed should have a minor (if any) emotional impact. Or so it seems to me.
Everything else still seems to stand.

But something may have shifted along the way...

Taking into consideration what we understand about 'wave-reading consciousness units', the effects of the observer on a system being measured, and the open-ended quality of 'the future', Laura's statement, as indicated in the quote above, is immensely reasonable.

...and I am already somehow internally prone to take it as fact and "the truth".

Mr. Gullible, I understand this completely, however, I dare to speculate that once we put the final remnants of 'the gospel truth' concept to bed, it will be much less likely. That's one of the things I'm working on myself.

 

[mkrnhr]

I much prefer reading what they have to say in context with Laura's interpretation and understanding.

Yes, you are right, it's 'safer'. Note that many interresting things were said in that transcript, but most of us tried to predict and anticipate the future, and to note hits so to say :)
Trying to anticipate is closing the possibilities and in a certain sense, may be interpreted as closing the horizons in the inner world. The future is indeed more or less deterministic in the material world, but is still open in the freewill inner world, at least if we free it by the Work. OSIT of course.

 

[bltay]

Not meaning any disrespect, but is there any chance the message was corrupted, or partially corrupted, as many of the early messages were?

 

[Buddy]

Hi bltay;

Sounds reasonable. However, my problem with being able to satisfy your curiosity with a specific answer though, is that I can't imagine any important implication(s) from any particular chance percentage.

 

[fabric]

Is it really that important to track the C's "hit rate"? It seems to me where that could lead would be detrimental to objectivity.

First off, I also have the strong wish for the C's to be right, and just have the answers given and the pieces put together. So I pay attention to any mention of the C's hit rate, too.

I don't see it as terribly important to "track" hits either, and perhaps not the intent? To me it is just more of an observation, sort of like this is what is happening and this is what was said about it years ago... An example that comes to mind is that we can take Nostradamus and apply his quatrains to current events and say "perhaps this is what he was talking about" and learn something from it. As long as one doesnt' get too identified with the C's and 'not deify' them then perhaps it's okay.

Funny that you wish for the C's to be right, I actually hope they are wrong :P but so far it doesn't look that way! (with what everything going on in the world)... At least we can count on the future being 'open'...

 

[MrGullible]

Funny that you wish for the C's to be right, I actually hope they are wrong :P but so far it doesn't look that way! (with what everything going on in the world)... At least we can count on the future being 'open'...

ah! I should rephrase :)

I would like for them to be wrong of course, too. I mean there is some part/program of me that is fascinated and wants 100% validation so that it would prove that there are higher beings, and that at least some of them hopefully have our best interests in mind. But, whatever this part is, it is akin to wanting to actually see a miracle, etc. This is part wishful thinking and other parts I can't put my finger on yet -- maybe associated with laziness and wanting the answers!

 

[anart]

I mean there is some part/program of me that is fascinated and wants 100% validation so that it would prove that there are higher beings,

A: Yes. Don't deify us. And, be sure all others with which you communicate understand this too!

Looking outside oneself for 'salvation' - for 'certainty' - for 'rescue' ... leaves one where? And, if all we have is ourselves- our own learning, our own progress - then how much more vital does it become to 'Know Thyself'?

There are a hundred possible interpretations of that C's transmission - the point is that ALL of this is up to us -- the C's guidance is guidance that will not violate Free Will - if one is looking for certainty, then that is a violation of Free Will. I have no definite answers, of course - however, it seems to me that the lesson in this thread might evidence itself in the tendency to look for a deity when all that exists is our potential, if realized through work, suffering, effort and understanding. That concept - that it is up to us and no one else - can be much more 'frightening' than a New World Order ushered in by a Bush that never leaves office.

The energy spent on this question in this thread does seem to indicate that we're looking for certainty and direction where only lessons exist. fwiw.