A Quote by Rush Limbaugh

If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is with representation. — © Rush Limbaugh
If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is with representation.
In 1790, the nation which had fought a revolution against taxation without representation discovered that some of its citizens weren't much happier about taxation with representation.
The American colonies, all know, were greatly opposed to taxation without representation. They were also, a less celebrated quality, equally opposed to taxation with representation.
To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
What we should have fought for was representation without taxation.
It is a well known and very important fact that America's founding fathers did not like taxation without representation. It is a lesser known and equally important fact that they did not much like taxation with representation.
Our forefathers made one mistake. What they should have fought for was representation without taxation.
Taxation without representation is tyranny.
Consciousness, much like our feelings, is based on a representation of the body and how it changes when reacting to certain stimuli. Self-image would be unthinkable without this representation.
it was the United States which first established general suffrage for men upon the two principles that 'taxation without representation is tyranny' and that governments to be just should 'derive their consent from the governed.' The unanswerable logic of these two principles is responsible for the extension of suffrage to men and women the world over. In the United States, however, women are still taxed without 'representation' and still live under a government to which they have given no 'consent.
...it is not only the general principles of justice that are infringed, or at least set aside, by the exclusion of women, merely as women, from any share in the representation; that exclusion is also repugnant to the particular principles of the British Constitution. It violates one of the oldest of our constitutional maxims...that taxation and representation should be co-extensive. Do not women pay taxes?
Did you ever get to wondering if taxation without representation might have been cheaper?
I return my tax bill without paying it. My reason for doing so is that women suffer taxation yet have not representation.
There's no representation. That's why the NBA Players Association was formed, players' unions were formed. That's why those unions were formed - to have representation before you make rules for me that I have to abide by. How can I participate and how can it be fair if there's no representation?
I'm a believer that we should support various forms of representation because they clearly resonate with unheard groups of people, and for such a huge project like 'Riverdale,' this kind of representation is fundamentally important.
Not all representation is good representation. I would argue a lot of the marginalized representation in TV and media is off, because a lot of the gatekeepers are white straight cis people who mean well and they think meaning well is enough, and it's not.
Many agricultural counties are far more important in the life of the State than their population bears to the entire population of the State. It is for this reason that I have never been in favor of restricting their representation in our State Senate to a strictly population basis. It is the same reason that the founding fathers of our country gave balanced representation to the States of the Union, equal representation in one House and proportionate representation based upon population in the other.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!