Maybe it's just me...
I don't know what it is with the left and analogies. I know that it's really hard impossible for them to make real arguments without employing logic irrational thought. So I've noticed they often resort to analogies as a clever way to make their point...
Fighting for peace is like f*****g for virginity.
That was one of the star gems of used in their protests of the wars over the last decade (and maybe before that since I don't know when the acid trip that was the genesis of that brilliance actually was). It's too bad Hitler didn't think of a debate ending show stopper like that, he could've saved himself some war declarations. (It's a line only a teleprompter could love)
Then there's this intellectual lockbox where liberals think this ...
Is EXACTLY THE SAME as saying
Except for the generic crosshairs on a map representing congressional districts, the crosshairs that explicitly represent a gun being trained on Sarah Palin's forehead, and the clear line delineating the difference between the two, I can see where liberals would see the similarities.
Then there are analogies like the one supplied recently by David Corn, an editor over at Mother Jones took the opportunity to snipe at this years CPAC event with...
Calls on Obama to sign a repeal of #HCR. That's like calling on Newt to remarry wife No. 1. #cpac11
If you do a search for #CPAC11 on Twitter you'd find this is by far the most retweeted item on the subject, which leads me to one of my biggest pet peeves, being when liberals make such fantastically unrealistic comparisons and then congratulate themselves like they just won the special olympics. (I'm acutely aware of the fact that saying such a thing can be highly offensive to people involved in coordinating the special olympics, and I apologize for implying liberals would be good enough to compete.)
Seriously though, did these guys have a rough time on their SATs or something? A nation altering/bankrupting law is now like a failed marriage, and repealing it is like undoing its divorce? Needless to say this raises a few stupid questions:
Did the tax payers have to pay for the divorce?
What did the CBO say about its impact on the deficit?
Was the approval rating for the divorce open to the general public or did this remain a private matter to the Gingrich family?
I'm not for a second interested in defending what Newt did, regardless of how long ago it happened and how much of a changed person he might be now. What he did to both of his first two wives is indefensible, but for someone like Corn to use that as a vehicle to end debate on whether or not ObamaCare's repeals is wrong frankly needs some semblance of intelligence before I could even try to elevate it to "unintelligent."
What's next? Are liberals going to try to tell us that Michael Moore isn't actually a fat tub of lard because his body is no more out of shape than Jack Lalanes decomposing corpse?