Argument is war is one statement that expresses this idea quite clearly and is supported by the various examples of argumentative speech that use verbs associated either with physical conquest and overpowering, or with the direct opposite, destruction and overpowered weakness. One of the most compelling aspects of the argument in Metaphors (1980) is the notion that people subconsciously integrate poetic imagination and elaborate rhetoric into their speech, despite the often mundane everyday tasks about which their thoughts and actions revolve. The role of language, then, is deeply questioned.
The underlying problem is how we, human beings, relate to the world and each other. The argument from Lackoff and Johnson may be that we conceptualize our lives and thus we relate to the world around us in a conceptual way. There is, however, a difficult in thus attempting to analyze our use of language using language. After all, definitions and functions of words, the very focus of linguistics, all play an integral role in the analytical process of the human mind. Its something like the linguistic version of the chicken and the egg. Which came first, concepts or language?
When we say that time is money and use expressions like, youre wasting my time, could it be that the notion that time is money emerged as an actual practical consideration and subsequently developed into a conceptual notion? Just as the example of the apple-juice-chair, an apparently absurd phase in general, can have a viable meaning in a given context, it seems plausible that metaphorical concepts such as time is money and argument is war, leading to the extension of the metaphor in language such as youre wasting my time, could simply have received their contextual relevance over time.