Prosecute the torture.

May 26, 2006

Santorums Confirm It: No Furniture Inside Their Penn Hills House

...by their own actions

The Santorums say that they fear that there have been prowlers at their Penn Hills "home" because someone said that there was no furniture inside that "home."

Santorum's attack ad said:

According to a KDKA investigative report, a Casey operative admitted to trespassing at the Santorum’s home in Penn Hills. Peering into the windows looking for campaign dirt.
But it has been confirmed by KDKA that no one has admitted to trespassing.

So doesn't it logically follow that for the Santorums to believe that there were prowlers, they must admit that that their "home" had no furniture in it?

After all, if there was furniture there, the prowlers would have seen it, right? There would have been no claims of an empty house.

The only reason that the Santorums could have made a legitimate claim to having prowlers is if the prowlers revealed something true about their home (lack of furniture). Otherwise, if someone just said that there was no furniture in their home, and there was furniture in the home, you would just say someone is lying -- you wouldn't assume someone had gone to all the effort to trespass and then make up stories about what they had seen when they trespassed.

You wouldn't claim there were prowlers unless you had some proof of prowling and the only proof is that the prowlers knew what was inside your "home."

Capisce?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

it would be funny to see how you would feel if someone lurked around your home. you are justifying trespassing.

santorum has every right, he owns the home, and pays taxes on the home, so it's LEGALLY his residence. any further questions?

Anonymous said...

and also who cares if there is no furniture in it. he can do whatever he wants with the house. it is his, he pays taxes on it, it's a residence. you are just whining and your insignificant post proves it, especially when you post something as trivial as furniture or no furniture in a house. i am convinced that you need an anti-depressant drug. paxil may help you.

Jebst45 said...

Owning a home and paying taxes does not make it your residence. As noted on Keystone Politics, a landlord owns a building and pays taxes on it, but that does not mean he or she lives there. It is NOT the landlord's residence, it is the tennents residence--LEGALLY. Even a landlord who owns a vacant building cannot claim residence, because he/she does not live there. and SANTORUM is the one that made this an issue when he first ran.

Anonymous said...

you're comparing apples to oranges. Santorum DOES NOT rent the house out. So what you just said doesn't apply at all. A futile manuever on your part.

Ol' Froth said...

Um..I think he has rented it out in the past.

Anonymous said...

uh, lemme see here. if the Senator and his family actually LIVED in the house he would have no need for the Capitol Police to drive 500 miles to tell him what any REAL homeowner knows; the standard security measures for a property (see KDKA-TV report). it's obvious these measures were not executed because... why do so if you're not residing there. case solved.

of course, the other option is to blame it on your rival Senate candidate.

really, it's all pretty embarassing and trivial PR... and much ado about nothing.

i think Mrs. Santorum should stick to knitting.

Anonymous said...

btw, it's spelled "capisce"

djhlights said...

Let's not forget he's also committing tax fraud since he claims a homestead tax exemption on the property, which can only be used by residents of the state if the property is the primary residence for a majority of the year.

This was part of the debate in the past few years because the people who used to live at the home before this recent spat were his wife's neice and her husband. The Santorums refused to answer questions if they rented the property because that would negate their claim for the homestead exemption they were getting on the property.

Jebst45 said...

In response to the anonymous post that said since santorum isn't renting the house its apples and oranges to compare it to a landlord. No, its not. the point is that owning a home does not make it your residence. the clearest example of this is a landlord. the logic of asserting that owning a home and paying taxes on it makes it your residence is false. Come on, this is logic 101, ie "all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs." I am arguing a point of logic, not the ethics, appropriateness or merrit of representing a district you do not live in.

Maria said...

btw, it's spelled "capisce"

Ooops! And I call myself Italian...well 3/8's anyway.

Fixed it.

Anonymous said...

apples to oranges anonymous has to be either Honsberger, Bra-bender, or some other equally morally challenged Fox Newspeaker.
Really, when are you Rethugs going to realise that the people who read 2PJ are capable of rational thought. Santorum is a liar, a cheat. God help us if he somehow gets re-elected.

Anon #2

Shawn said...

He hasn't felt safe in that place since someone stole his strawberries.

And there was an extra key damnit!