What are some of the most retarded arguments on the present "contraceptive" controversy?

Retarded Question: Aren't Republicans trying to ban access to contraception?
Obvious Answer: No. They only object to forcing everyone to buy it.

RQ: Didn't they just have a hearing on banning it?
OA: No. They had a hearing on whether or not the President has unilateral power to force everyone to buy it.

RQ: How is it any of my employer's business if I use contraceptives?
OA: No one said it is, nor is anyone trying to stop you. The argument is only that your employer should not be forced to buy it for you.

RQ: Are you saying my employer has a right to force his morality on me?
OA: No. I'm saying he does not. I'm also saying you don't have a right to force yours on him.

RQ: Shouldn't it be my choice?
OA: It already is and no one suggests changing that - or did you mean "shouldn't forcing others to pay for it be your choice?" In that case, no. Of course not.

RQ: But don't Republicans want to stop funding Planned Parenthood? Isn't that the same thing?
OA: No. They only want to end the practice of forcing everyone to fund it.

RQ: But PPACA (Obamacare) requires free access to preventative medicine.
AO: So what? 1) There is clearly no lawful authority for Congress to make any such law. 2) PPACA does not define contraceptives into that category. 3) The President unilaterally did that by his own declaration. 4) Surely you aren't suggesting reproduction is a disease, and if not, this whole line of argument is irrelevant.

RQ: But 99% of American women, and 95% of American women who are Catholic, use artificial birth control.
OA: That doesn't give them the right to force others to pay for it. Also, it's a lie. The study yielding those numbers was only of women who were sexually active while trying to avoid pregnancy. 90-some percent of women who want to have sex and avoid pregnancy say they use some method to prevent it.

RQ: What about when birth control drugs are used for medical treatment?
OA: Are you still not getting the "not forcing others to pay" thing?

RQ: Why is it ok to cover Viagra?
OA: That was your side's idea. We opposed that as well. Not "covering" it, per se, just forcing other people to buy it.

RQ: Get real. Don't you see this is a war to stop women's choice?
OA: Really? Then how have you been getting condoms, foams, pills etc. until now? So far, we have not been compelling everyone to buy them. How is "not changing that" suddenly going to stop you? The rule we're fighting against DOES force all women to abandon their choice. The entire Democrat caucus demands you be forced into this purchase even if you will never use them and regardless of any moral objection you might have.

How can I stop a emotional blackmailer peacefully?

Stop helping them.
They WILL stop the moment you actually want them to. It really is that simple.

Wasn't Jesus the original liberal?

Not in the least, although approximately 8 out of 8 liberals say he was while they ridicule Christianity and claim it's based on hate.
> He demanded obedience to Old Testament law, pretty-much all of which is utterly intolerable to liberals.
> He urged his followers to arm themselves for protection against an abusive government, which is completely antithetical to core liberal ideology.
> He never once suggested you should get your government to force others to pay for politically defined "help" for politically chosen "needy" which is the sine quo non of all liberal advocacy.
> He said individuals should use their own resources cheerfully to address legitimate needs they identify, which is a concept ridiculed by all liberals.
> He said not to "help" the idle. Liberals declare this idea absolutely hateful.
> He promoted a spirit of voluntary association for mutual benefit, free of the violence and threat thereof upon which all liberal "benefits" are based.
So, sticking with the modern American political model suggested by your question, it's pretty obvious he was a conservative.