SageAgainstTheMachine

I've heard that using amphetamines in the lockerroom is still quite prevalent. I forgot which team it was, but in the lockerroom there was "leaded" coffee and "unleaded" coffee. Not so subtle. I think amphetamines are the dirty little secret of the NHL that everybody sorta knows about.

Alright dude, sounds good to me. That's what tends to happen when people have discussions regarding human nature.

You mean because of the Fugitive Slave Act? I have to admit, I don't know much about Fillmore...

Well I apologize for assuming you were uninformed, but you haven't been backing up any of your arguments with scientific data, you've just been saying that I'm wrong and then vaguely explaining why.

And I guess I should clarify my point a little. When I say "put down the bottle", I mean "Do everything in your power to put down the bottle." I realize that cold turkey only works for a very small percentage of addicts, the people that realize just how strong will power can be. Counselling, AA meetings, anything that helps a person to quit. The trouble is that I believe the whole victim mentality is a good excuse for people to not seek help. That's why I protest against the disease label. At AA meetings, the people say "I have a problem", not "I have a disease". Admitting you have a problem is the correct attitude and the first step toward beating it. Thinking you have a disease is the wrong attitude and an easy way give up hope of ever beating it.

Probably about as much as you. Sometimes common sense suffices, doesn't it? Problem: Cannot drink in moderation. Solution: Don't drink at all.

What does the man's religion have anything to do with this? Christians, Jewish people, Hindus...men of those faiths have killed their wives too.

Nope, I have many problems and personal issues of my own. I'm just man enough to take personal responsibility for them.

Putting words in my mouth again. I never said depression wasn't a real disease. And you are dead wrong about support not being important. One of the primary causes behind depression is the sense of isolation that sadness causes. People with a strong support system of family and friends are less likely to slip into depression and that's a verifiable fact. Why would talking to a psychiatrist help but talking to your brother not help? As for most mental diseases, I can only assume they are all "real" but I think that they are overdiagnosed. Some people have chronic fatigue syndrome, but other people diagnosed with it are lazy. Some kids have ADHD, but the majority that are prescribed Ritalin are just poorly behaved. Some people probably have seasonal affective disorder, but the majority of others just like to mope about the winter. As for anorexia and alcoholism, they are behavioral. Nobody becomes an alcoholic by drinking a couple of beers every weekend. They become alcoholics from drinking heavily. People make the mistake of drinking too much and some of them become addicted. The cure is to put down the f*cking bottle and stop drinking. The cure to anorexia is to pick up a fork and eat something. People who are unwilling to change their lifestyles in order to prevent themselves from dying do not have my sympathy. It's the same with obesity. Yes, some people have legitimate metabolism probles, but the majority of obese people just eat far too much and never leave their living room couch. And yet, morbidly obese people now qualify as having a "disability". It seems that in America, we're all about being victims. "I can't stop drinking, I have alcoholism". "It isn't my son's fault that he acts up in class, he has ADHD."

Any good psychologist or psychiatrist will tell you that non-medical treatments for depression can be just as, if not more, valuable than medical treatments. Therapy, counselling, support from family and friends, thinking positive (and yes, that includes smiling) all do wonders. Yes, pills are necessary a lot of the time, but saying that you "disagree 100%" that smiling more can help is just foolish. And would you please hold off on the Straw Man logic, it isn't fooling anybody. You turned "I don't believe anorexia and alcoholism are diseases" into "I only believe in diseases that you can physically see". Maybe I just have a different interpretation of the word disease than you.

Do you disagree that it helps? I'm no doctor, but I suspect a positive outlook is capable of doing things that pills can't.

Hilarious This one's even better IMO... http://www.theonion.com/content/video/pre_...coin_toss_makes

Not the hugest Danny McBride fan (thought he was intolerable in pineapple express), but this seems like a funny show, and it's about baseball which just ups the ante.

Aw man, Marshaw Lynch got arrested too? Why can't the Lynch family stay out of trouble?

Yippie Kay Yay Mr. Falcon.

My family has a pretty significant history of alcoholism, so I'm not separated from this issue. Having said that, I'm sorry, if the cure to your disease is eating a sandwich or not drinking beer, I don't consider it a disease. There is a difference between a disease and an addiction. An addiction can be solved with will power, no matter how hard it may be. Withdrawal is a horrible thing, but people DO quit their addictions cold turkey.

You know who ran a slow 40? Jerry Rice. How'd he turn out?

Ok, I don't want to sound insensitive, but there are millions of people out there in the world who barely have the resources to feed themselves every couple of days, and many of those people (including children) starve to death. And I'm supposed to feel bad for privileged girls from the suburbs who REFUSE to eat because of body image problems? Yeah, advertisements have created unhealthy ideals and everything but if these girls are dumb enough to blindly follow those ideals like lemmings, I don't see why they are deserving of pity. There's such a thing as free will.

I know, but just consider it an example of metonymy. "The Oval Office" is metonymous for "The Presidency".

I think they say 42 presidents because they don't count Grover Cleveland twice.

Well answer me this; If 3,000 people die in a terrorist attack a few months from now and then there isn't another attack for 7 years under Obama, will you applaud him for the 7 years or condemn him for being "soft on terrorism" and allowing the first attack? Why do you let Bush off with a free pass? What if the attack had occured on 9/11 of the year 2000? You'd probably be critical of Clinton because he's a Democrat. The point of my post was that you can't just draw a line of causation between our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the fact that 7 years have passed without an attack on US soil. It's a logical fallacy.

I suspect this was nothing but a very very good acting job by Joaquin (and I'd expect nothing less).

Yes, but unfortunately we live an a society where "Protecting our children" has become synonymous with "Lying to our children in order to avoid difficult, yet completely innocent, conversations".

You make it sound like there were terrorist attacks happening on a monthly basis and then they just stopped once we invaded. Exactly how many terrorist attacks on US soil do you think there were under Clinton, HW Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc.? Also, don't be so paranoid.

He said he served 4 years, not 25.