amazingly all of bushco in the whitehouse are missing.

this is a list of alledged crimes.

dadams @ 2:

amazingly all of bushco in the whitehouse are missing.

this is a list of alledged crimes.

No a lot of those on the list are convicted Republicans.

Bravo!

CD @ 1:

Republican Offenders.com while useful is kind of silly since among other thinks it includes people who never held elected office and further more a person could just as easily make a list of Democrats.

A few are not office holders, some are activists or funders etc, but the majority ARE elected or appointed officials.

Which comes first, becoming a Republican,or becoming a pedophile?
In the current light of our nations situation perhaps the more profound question should be:
Which is the greatest offense, being a repug or being a pedophile?
Depends on the victim I suppose.

GOP=GROUP OF PEDOPHILES

CD @ 1:

Republican Offenders.com while useful is kind of silly since among other thinks it includes people who never held elected office and further more a person could just as easily make a list of Democrats.

Since when is something "useful" , also "silly" ?

Except Silly String , of course..........

I'll tell you what , with out the internet we are 100% SOL . People had better pull their heads out and not ask for , but demand NET NEUTRALITY from internet providers . The TELCOMS are already illegally spying on us for King George , what do you think will happen if they can pick and chose who and what we have access to on the Web ?

The Republicans are just unclear on the concept when it comes to that old saying; "Politics makes for strange bedfellows".

Radically Moderate @ 10:

Which comes first, becoming a Republican,or becoming a pedophile?
In the current light of our nations situation perhaps the more profound question should be:
Which is the greatest offense, being a repug or being a pedophile?
Depends on the victim I suppose.

Its a mindset, persons who are suffering from some level of mental illness, sociopaths,
Ted Bundy (R) types with ends justifies the means, instant gratification or plain out and out psychopathic personalities.
Some get raised by similar parents who indoctrinate their spawn to expect everybody else to be their serfs and incomes.
All the recent and not so recent financial types scamming the 401Ks retirees, same mindset.

Okay, Id feel a little better if there was a sister site regarding Convicted Democrats....

Id also feel better if you didnt, lets face it, 'pad your stats' a bit...the BTK killer? just because he was a registered republican? ted bundy, because he worked for a campaign? hope you had a good workout, cause youre doing a lot of stretching with those two....

seriously...do you guys think that list isnt long enough without them? its not like its not going to get longer any time soon...

As TERRIBLE as the GOP is, I don't this list will be complete without also including democrats and independents who have also committed crimes.

This list makes it seem like crime is specific to GOP only. If we are going to fix the problems of government, we have to at least NAME all of the problems, instead of sticking one's head in the sand and hope that democrats will clean house. Why hasn't the elections of 2004 been proof of this?

Drew @ 24:

As TERRIBLE as the GOP is, I don't this list will be complete without also including democrats and independents who have also committed crimes.

This list makes it seem like crime is specific to GOP only. If we are going to fix the problems of government, we have to at least NAME all of the problems, instead of sticking one's head in the sand and hope that democrats will clean house. Why hasn't the elections of 2004 been proof of this?

Ok go make up a list of Democrat criminals,
just remember that something about the Republican party is attractive to the pedophile type.
thats why there are so many R types interested in children, do they use their party buddies to protect them and deflect suspicion,
or is it something worse and more akin to a shared hobby amongst certain types in the GOP.

Drew @ 24:

As TERRIBLE as the GOP is, I don't this list will be complete without also including democrats and independents who have also committed crimes.

This list makes it seem like crime is specific to GOP only. If we are going to fix the problems of government, we have to at least NAME all of the problems, instead of sticking one's head in the sand and hope that democrats will clean house. Why hasn't the elections of 2004 been proof of this?

Criminals like to register in the “law and order” party because it hides who they really are (for a while). I dare you to make a list half that size and going back 50 years. Come back in a week and show us what you got! :-)

i hate republicans as much as the next free thinker but c'mon...are you tellin me you actually think that somehow if you're a democrat you don't commit crimes? Please. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. They're all criminals. I just happen to agree more often with the policies that Democratic criminals, er politicians, espouse.

On the other hand, seems to me more Repubs campaign on morality and honesty and decency etc. than do Dems. And so by that measure, yeah, I'll grant you that Repubs are the bigger hypocrites. But that's splitting hairs a bit don't you think?

Paul's Bunions @ 28:

Drew @ 24:

As TERRIBLE as the GOP is, I don't this list will be complete without also including democrats and independents who have also committed crimes.

This list makes it seem like crime is specific to GOP only. If we are going to fix the problems of government, we have to at least NAME all of the problems, instead of sticking one's head in the sand and hope that democrats will clean house. Why hasn't the elections of 2004 been proof of this?

Criminals like to register in the “law and order” party because it hides who they really are (for a while). I dare you to make a list half that size and going back 50 years. Come back in a week and show us what you got! :-)

And the repressed and ashamed practitioners of various forms of sex find in the Republican Party a disturbing means of getting off: Crusading against their own closeted behavior.

ferrofluid @ 26:

"Ok go make up a list of Democrat criminals"

No because then I would be doing the same thing as republicanoffenders.com!

"just remember that something about the Republican party is attractive to the pedophile type."

I guess...but for me I don't generalize like that, because it eradicates the individual. For example, I do not look at the race, gender, or culture stats for the criminals in this country, and conclude anything definite on those demographics. I don't think you would too. It's the same thing about which wing you call yourself. To make conclusions based on those groups is an absolutely vicious form of collectivism, so it's either do it all of the time or do it none of the time. You cannot do it some of the time and be logically consistent.

"thats why there are so many R types interested in children, do they use their party buddies to protect them and deflect suspicion"

By making this statement, you are actually sanctioning those criminals who call themselves democrats. I do not care about what the "majority" does. I am actually not surprised by your way of thinking, because to you majorities are truth. It's one side effect, among many, in a democracy (we were never supposed to be a democracy where 51% rule the remaining 49%, but rather a Constitutional Republic where 99% cannot violate the rights of the remaining 1%)

"or is it something worse and more akin to a shared hobby amongst certain types in the GOP."

Sounds to me like some kind of neo-McCarthyism. Focus on the group and start attacking individuals.

Paul's Bunions @ 17:

CD @ 1:

Republican Offenders.com while useful is kind of silly since among other thinks it includes people who never held elected office and further more a person could just as easily make a list of Democrats.

If it were so easy why haven't the Swiftboaters done it long ago?

Chances are because they didn't want their Black Sheep listed.

It was a M.A.D. situation.

Why isn't McCain on the list? Keating 5, FEC violations, failing to report that he had died of old age in 2004.

Ok lets be generous and say that Republicans are generally good people, just that the worst dominates and rise to the top.
We still have the situation of Republican hypocrisy of the very visible Congress types and the bible thumping types who hate everybody non standard.

Scary, really scary. Really shows the double standards the GORP has on individual responsibility - do as I say not as I do.

Wonder how long before this type of thing spreads to other political entities at federal, state and local levels?

ferrofluid @ 29:

fastfeat @ 21:

No Mark Foley?

not arrested, no conviction just rumour and some IMs,
a quick entry into rehab through the front door then out the back door to the nightclubs and a holiday,
he was spotted (and photographed) while supposedly in rehab clubbing and jetting off to warmer climes.
his Congressional PCs were kept from the Florida LE, and the hard drives most likely were taken out the back into a carpark and melted down with thermite.

Thanks. I know everyone's "innocent 'till proven guilty", but if I quit my job and check into rehab (or were given that opportunity) I'd have been assumed guilty. Different standards when you're in public office, I suppose...

So one in five criminal Republicans is a pedophile? It begs the question (which I would have written in all-caps if that wasn't so gauche) "Who is the fifth Republican?"

Nifty trick, eh? If 22% of Republicans accused or convicted of crimes are pedophiles, one could treat that fact as a statistic sample and, through the practice of Moronic Logic, conclude that 22% of all Republicans are pedophiles. Get yourself a TV show, and repeat until true.

Drew @ 47:

[Drew. You're getting long again. Cut it back-Sitemonitor]

Sorry.

ferrofluid @ 3:

The list really has to be seen to be appreciated.

Pedophilia Republicanism and mental illness seems to go together.

I thought they were and are just all different aspects of the same thing. Republian=Pederasty=Insanity.

Seems perfectly sensible to me.

Dear Site Monitor:
I am sorry that the CAPS offended you- I have read and Emailed your posts to friends and contacts for 3 years- you don't have to delete me- or be snippy, I am not a Troll I was merely asking a Question, and yeah, I put it in Caps- because it is an important issue.- But the loss of the Email function is really odd- I still don't understand WHY you would elminate something that is useful for spreading information- as the other functions in the "Share" function are not ( ie yahoo ? google? please....) If you are having problems with really rude trolls- don't take it out on the loyal readers....and people who share your blog with so many. ( or are you becoming like KOS- delete the girls ? comments or concerns? thanks- news for you ,women bloggers are going through hell right now- we don't need hassle here too....)

Drew @ 47:

Any statement on the nature of humans which does not apply to individuals is worthless, and actually DANGEROUS.

Really? Any statement? When you drive, do you presume, in general, that most people will drive on the correct side of the road? Or do you shy from driving altogether because you just might encounter those few individuals who are crazy enough to play chicken in traffic?

Generalizations are what intelligent people avoid, because it CONTAINS ERRORS, HOWEVER SMALL. You think it's rational to err on the side of the generalization.

No, I think that in some circumstances it would be rational to work with generalizations.

I think it's rational to try to NOT err at all. I can do this by always looking at people as individuals.

To try not to, sure. Whether you can always base all of your decisions on individualities and on case-by-case bases is dubious to me.

The fact of recognizing a general trend never stops at being a mere recognition. In the sphere of human action, all thoughts of the nature of mankind get translated into actual actions in our relationships.

Fair enough. We make generalizations a lot. And we act upon them. Sometimes, we make policy based on them. The question becomes whether the generalizations are statistically accurate, and whether policies based on them are rational and fair. I don't think they are per se irrational and unfair.

I don't think comparing physical characteristics, such as body size, is the same as comparing NAMES, such as democrat, republican, etc. There are moral, intelligent and creative democrats as well as republicans . . .

I'm not going to argue with you about the righteousness of republicanoffenders.com. It is silly and unfair.

But not because it makes broad and sweeping generalizations based on names and words rather than body size or physical characteristics. I mean, if the same list were compiled of members of mafioso families, would you be equally loathed to find a statistical correlation between such membership and criminality based on names and records? How about if the list were of members of the KKK or the American Nazi Party?

The problem here is that merely subscribing to the Republican Party platform on its face cannot necessarily indicate criminality, and no one has offered any hard, scientific evidence that there is a genuine correlation between being Republican and committing crimes.

You will NEVER be able to scientifically prove that [Republicans commit more crimes], because we're talking about human action, which means unpredictability. Scientifically proving hypotheses only works in the natural sciences.

We scientifically predict human behavior all the time. Indeed, it's more difficult and less precise than in the natural sciences, and yes, it often relies on generalizations, but human behavior is not altogether unpredictable.

Besides, all we would be looking for is a statistically significant correlation between being active in the Republican Party and committing crimes. Again, I don't think it would shock you tremendously if studies found a correlation between membership in the Nazi Party and criminality. If the numbers were there for Republicans, I'd be shocked, but significant statistical trends would warrant analysis. (Same with Democrats, of course.)

to be continued.....

Too bad they don't have the balls to print the names of the 1,000+ democrats, and that would only cover the Clinton years and would include Slick Willie and the Weasel. The list would also include the 50+ that crossed the Clintons and are no longer among the living. By the way, have the several dozen who fled the county rather than face the law or the wrath of the Clintons returned yet? Selling pardons was really profitable though, collected $109 million + from those pardoned, covered as speach fee's. Give us a break.

Scrapiron @ 56:

Too bad they don't have the balls to print the names of the 1,000+ democrats, and that would only cover the Clinton years and would include Slick Willie and the Weasel. The list would also include the 50+ that crossed the Clintons and are no longer among the living. By the way, have the several dozen who fled the county rather than face the law or the wrath of the Clintons returned yet? Selling pardons was really profitable though, collected $109 million + from those pardoned, covered as speach fee's. Give us a break.

*yawn* You left the blow job... GOP trolls are getting sloppy.

It is amazing how quickly you guys can turn a blind eye to the massive clusterfuck of corruption and incompetence that we have been witnessed after 8 years of GOP rule.

In the words of your revered leader Cheney: Go f*ck yourself....

After 09, more pages will likely be needed. Also, there may be a very large Pardoned Republicans Dot Com.

Karen @ 54:

I like your posts Karen. Even if you disagree your style shows you are a mature thinker.

"Really? Any statement? When you drive, do you presume, in general, that most people will drive on the correct side of the road? Or do you shy from driving altogether because you just might encounter those few individuals who are crazy enough to play chicken in traffic?"

Nice analogy. But again I think we are talking about different things. With statistics, you can say body size and driving can be averaged out, because in those two circumstances there is really no place for individual rights to be violated. But in the realm of the law, these generalizations have no basis. I think practicality and legality should be separated.

"No, I think that in some circumstances it would be rational to work with generalizations."

Sure, I agree. But not in the law.

"To try not to, sure. Whether you can always base all of your decisions on individualities and on case-by-case bases is dubious to me."

Case by case is how the law works doesn't it?

"Fair enough. We make generalizations a lot. And we act upon them. Sometimes, we make policy based on them. The question becomes whether the generalizations are statistically accurate, and whether policies based on them are rational and fair. I don't think they are per se irrational and unfair."

If the policies violate ONE person, to me that is NOT fair. Why is the majority of people more important than one person? What if that person is you? It doesn't have to be that way if we had a society that respected individual rights rather than group rights.

"I'm not going to argue with you about the righteousness of republicanoffenders.com. It is silly and unfair."

I would have been better to have ALL politicians who have committed crimes.

"But not because it makes broad and sweeping generalizations based on names and words rather than body size or physical characteristics. I mean, if the same list were compiled of members of mafioso families, would you be equally loathed to find a statistical correlation between such membership and criminality based on names and records? How about if the list were of members of the KKK or the American Nazi Party?"

I think it's a lot harder to arbitrarily label yourself a mafioso, KKK, or Nazi than a democrat or republican, and still be honest. Like I can wake up one day and honestly call myself a democrat or republican, but I can't do that for the KKK or Nazis. Those things take a long time to convince people. That's why the name democrat or republican is too superficial to make statements on human action. KKK and Nazi are BY DESIGN meant to be anti-human, to be aggressive, to be isolationist. But democrat/republican is not like this. Being either does not mean it is your stated goal to molest, kill, etc.

"The problem here is that merely subscribing to the Republican Party platform on its face cannot necessarily indicate criminality, and no one has offered any hard, scientific evidence that there is a genuine correlation between being Republican and committing crimes."

That would be the dumbest study ever. Like, I could commit crimes and then say I am a democrat just to screw with the study. That's one reason why science cannot explain human action.

"We scientifically predict human behavior all the time. Indeed, it's more difficult and less precise than in the natural sciences, and yes, it often relies on generalizations, but human behavior is not altogether unpredictable."

We cannot predict human action like we can predict nature. Because of that, we cannot predict human behavior. If we cannot be 100% certain, making any policies based on it would violate at least a finite number of people, which in my view is immoral.

"Besides, all we would be looking for is a statistically significant correlation between being active in the Republican Party and committing crimes. Again, I don't think it would shock you tremendously if studies found a correlation between membership in the Nazi Party and criminality. If the numbers were there for Republicans, I'd be shocked, but significant statistical trends would warrant analysis. (Same with Democrats, of course.)"

All that study would show is a correlation AT ONE POINT IN TIME. It states nothing about 100 years ago, or 100 years from now. Objectively we cannot say positive correlation for all time to come. At one point, the country was lead by immoral democrats, and moral republicans trying to fix the mess. It is not foolproof. But if you look at things from how the individuals act, you will be able to find out what works and what doesn't work when it comes to the means chosen to attain ends. THERE we can be more certain about the future. Mere names are completely useless.

Karen @ 55:

"It depends on the kind of decision. If we're dealing with putting people in jail, I would demand that each and every person receive a fair trial, and that the evidence against him prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before any jury could convict. I would not simply dispense with individual trials in favor of presuming the guilt of people based on criminal tendencies of a group."

Then we agree after all.

"On the other hand"

D'Oh

"...if it were proven that, in general, people tended to react and scramble about in a certain manner and a certain direction during an earthquake, I would indeed require buildings, roads and bridges to be constructed so as to accommodate the general tendency and minimize injuries and loss of life. Perhaps some individuals scramble about in a different manner, and would be hurt by the building code. But to tailor the architecture of each individual building to each and every individual who might enter it would likely be impossible. And the decisions based on generalizations are likely to be utilitarian in their aim."

Ah, but see? Building bridges and roads require the use of NATURAL sciences. And you see how you used the word "accommodate"? That means human behavior cannot be certain.

"Some decisions and policies are rightly based on generalizations and group actions. Some are not."

I think all policies that are based on groups is immoral. I think all the things you are thinking of can be framed from an individual perspective as well, and not only will nothing be lost, but maybe some things would even be better.

"Well, sure, but sometimes not basing a policy on a generalization or statistical trend will risk lives. Like in my hypothetical building code scenario."

I think building codes are not necessary actually. This is because I don't think the people making the codes are any more expert than the builders themselves. I think people think that as long as there are ANY codes, it's better than no codes, even if the codes are actually harmful to the inhabitants.

"Of course some generalizations are pernicious. Racial profiling, for instance, is designed to monitor African Americans and Latino Americans more closely because of their higher tendencies to commit crimes. It's sheer nonsense. But it's not pernicious because it uses a generalization. It's pernicious because it uses a wrong and inaccurate generalization."

Nice.

"But often we act with limited resources and limited time, and we don't always have the luxury of evaluating each and every individual likely to be affected by a policy."

That's true. But this is proof to me that policies should not be designed at all by central planners, other than protecting us from each other. Since resources are finite, I think the people can put them to the best use that minimizes inefficiency.

"The challenge is to devise the best policies we can."

Protect liberty....then we can go home.

"If we altogether renounce statistical trends and accurate generalizations, our policies could end up chaotic or non-sequitor, and wouldn't be good for anyone."

I think the policies already ARE chaotic and no good for anyone. Really, do you think that the central planners who use statistical trends can be any more certain than millions of people making decisions everyday? Just look at the current financial crisis. The Fed has dozens of PhD economists who all use statistical trends, and they still made a mess of everything. All their models that never saw what would happen when they inject billions of new money into the market is CAUSED by a reliance on statistical models that you called "imperfect". When generalizations and statistics are substituted for simple liberty and protection of rights, the results can be DISASTROUS. The polemic is that there is a sub-prime crisis. In reality, it's a DERIVATIVES crisis, "worth" upwards of $550 trillion. To put that number in perspective, that's $550,000 billion. The Fed bailed out Bear Stearns by giving JP Morgan $30 billion. Without doing so, they think the whole market would have crashed. That's how problematic the $550,000 billion derivatives market is.

That's why statistical models should NEVER be used in the realm of public policy. It minimizes the individual, it relegates him/her to a mere number, a stat, a nothing.

So there really is a "Republican ScandalBase!"

The only thing wrong with this site is that I can't find the "contact us" tab. I've got some fun local Politicians including Robert Green, 4 term mayor of Blue Ridge GA, Plead Guilty to 2 counts of Chicken fighting..(this is the guy who told me that the Memorial Day "Arts in the Park" festival needed to be canceled because "it brings in a bad crowd". The Georgia Bureau of Investigation released tapes of Hizzonor with his own box and Laz-e-boy recliner at the fights...)
Let's get a comprehensive list, with for both (and indeed, the minor) parties. I think the party that flogged morality in the Clinton years and has tried to demonize me as a gay man (and parent!) probably has hypocracy issues...

lol claude allen

I'm sure all those nice republicans on the list really mean well though.

Well...if one is to create a site such as republican Offenders...one must be absolutely positive that it's 100% accurate...otherwise...it's no different from GOP propaganda.