Skip to content

Pitcher who took $7 million for nothing decries “welfare leeches”

Jul 31, 2013, 9:14 AM EDT

UPDATE: Braden has contacted me on Twitter, taking issue. He says that he does not believe all welfare recipients are “leeches.” Rather, only those who use drugs and receive public assistance are “leeches.”  He has not explained to me how that squares with his desire to “test the welfare leeches” for drugs. Because, if they’re only leeches once they use, why are we testing them? We already know they use!

Braden is a pitcher, not a writer, so it’s possible that he merely mistyped and demanded that something else be done with “leeches” besides testing them. And that the testing not be for “leeches” but for the good people who have fallen on hard time. So that we can determine if, in fact, they are leeches.

9:14 AM: One can believe that the welfare state as currently constructed is not the best way to help those in need and/or is not the best use of resources. That’s just a matter of philosophy and politics and values and stuff and reasonable people can disagree without being rude and insensitive.

Unemployed pitcher Dallas Braden, however, is not interested in philosophical debates:

Pretty big talk for a guy who took nearly $7 million from the Athletics for a grand total of three starts between 2011 and 2012.

Oh, wait: you mean there were extenuating circumstances there? His inability to pitch those years was because of injury and not because he was some lazy leech sucking off the teet of some rich benefactor without doing anything in return? That he actually would have preferred to work for his money but simply was unable to due to the hand he was dealt? But that’s impossible! I am told by people like Braden himself that everyone who is paid without having to work is an awful bum.

In other news: there are some people from the 209 who live on government assistance. I wonder what they think of their crusading superhero and lord protector.

277 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. bfunk1978 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:17 AM

    Just so we’re clear, he got $7M because he got hurt on the job, right?

    • bfunk1978 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:17 AM

      Just checking this is the same guy.

    • jfk69 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:50 PM

      I got hurt on the job once, I asked the boss how will I get paid. He said..”Come to work tomorrow AND get paid. No work see what state pays in unemployment insurance. I will help you out.”
      Gee thanks

    • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 1:28 PM

      he signed a contract because he had talent– Greg Oden is the guy getting paid because he got hurt –before he ever played a regular season game–or that Sergio guy that was the #1 pick of the Ravens he got drunk and fell down the steps

  2. eagles512 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM

    He makes a good point. He wasn’t saying anyone on welfare-just those on drugs. But I guess that makes too much sense for Craig.

    • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:29 AM

      He advocates a false solution to a system built entirely on theft

    • djpostl - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:09 AM

      What point? The completely unfounded one that everyone on welfare is an addict? Or the one that ONLY athletes deserve a safety net in case they’re injured at work (like more than just a few people on welfare)? Let’s not forget the fact the overwhelming majority of people on it ACTUALLY WORK but still need help while some asshat like him is a multi-millionaire.

    • Andy - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:22 AM

      Only those on drugs, eh? How would you determine which welfare recipients are on drugs?

      • Old Gator - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:53 AM

        An old friend of mine, whenever his mother reminded him to finish his breakfast or dinner because children in Europe (this was the early 1950s) were starving, would reply “name one.” He remained scrawny until his death.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:36 PM

        OG, as a youngster, I tried sending my plate of liver to Ethopia once when my mother did that to me. Oh, it was a beating. And, it took me two more meals, but I finally ate every bit of that freaking liver.

    • ILoveBaseball - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:27 AM

      How else can “welfare leeches” be interpreted other than everyone on welfare? Braden was suggesting that all “welfare leeches” be tested for drugs since in his mind they obviously had a performance issue and should be punished for their drug use. And how much public money is Oakland looking for in a new stadium?

      • Old Gator - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:53 AM

        No, he comes from Stockton.

  3. philswfc08 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

    He’s headed in the right direction, but nowhere near the solution…forget drug testing, just END ALL THE ENTITLEMENTS!

    • paperlions - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:33 AM

      I couldn’t agree more….and let’s start with ending entitlements for the already filthy rich. You know how much tax payers spend just to support the life-styles and whims of former presidents? Too fucking much….especially considering the fact that ALL OF THOSE GUYS ARE ALREADY TREMENDOUSLY FUCKING RICH.

      Our government give far more handouts (in terms of giving money and tax breaks) to corporations and the filthy rich than it does to the poor.

      If you want to have fewer poor people, then you need to focus on education and job creation…instead, we keep cutting education, and allowing our companies to ship millions of jobs over seas.

      • Glenn - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        Amen. Let’s end welfare, corporate welfare. Everything else is a drop in the bucket.

      • Andy - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:32 PM

        Amen to that, Glenn.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:05 PM

        I love it when you go all bleeding heart asshole. 😉

      • paperlions - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:09 PM

        Well, if you are going to fuck people over, you may as well fuck over everyone, and not just the people that are already fucked, but also the ones doing the fucking.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM

        That’s a lot of fucking, my man.

      • paperlions - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:18 PM


      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM

        ha ha Cute.

      • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 1:33 PM

        I find it funny that Progressives have no problem with hospitals in Mexico having signs how to get to clinics in the USA to deliver their child– they dispense Food Stamps in Mexico– and yet they want everyone but a baby to have a choice in whether they should be killed or not… and a Guy that made it to the Big Leagues never did a thing to them– they ought to walk down the halls of any Federal Agency in DC if they want to see nothing happening

    • nightman13 - Jul 31, 2013 at 3:27 PM

      Bank of America, by itself, got a $7 trillion handout from the government (aka people it paid off.) The 1,300+ executives that helped drive the company into bankruptcy not only got to keep their jobs, avoid jail (for the copious felonies they committed) but also paid themselves millions in bonuses.

      That is one company. ONE. But the laid off factory worker with 30 years under his belt getting $1,000 a month is doing the damage. F’ing idiot.

      • nightman13 - Jul 31, 2013 at 3:31 PM

        Also by definition entitlement means the right to do or have something. Unless the people on welfare have never had a job or paid taxes, they have EARNED the right to be on welfare because they paid into it.

      • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM

        they are sending 60 Billion a month to the Bank of England calling it Quantitative Easing — all this banter is a joke with people commenting about Obama’s divide and conquer strategy when they should be focusing on the big picture .. that will be a trillion dollars by the time Obama and his tenure as Dictator is over

      • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 1:52 PM

        7 trillion is a manifestation on your part– it just is not true or could ever be true

      • nightman13 - Aug 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        False, it was very clearly documented in an article by Matt Tiabbi in Rolling Stone last year.

      • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 1:59 PM

        people giving you a thumbs up are obviously the type of people they look for in sheep BOA’s assets are 1.7 trillion and are that only because of a merger — BOA never got 7 trillion JPMORGAN STANLEY CHASE received 24 billion in their TARP bailout– I can’t believe the ignorance that is BOA received 500 Million and then was transferred to ownership to Obama pal Warren Buffet after a merger with Citibank— and guess what nightman that money went to solving Federal Mortgage program liabilities where pimps and hoes were given mortgages that were never meant to be repaid — exactly what Barden was talking about — demagogue

      • nightman13 - Aug 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

        BOA didn’t receive 7 trillion, the government absorbed their $7 trillion in debt caused by their bad investments, bad loans and other operational losses.

  4. Kevin S. - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

    I love the people saying that Braden is different because the taxpayers don’t pay his salary. BULL! Major League Baseball teams have collectively received billions in government handouts, increasing their profits and in turn dramatically increasing player salary. Corporate welfare and crony capitalism are far bigger drains on our governments’ funds than individual welfare, with lesser returns to boot.

    • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:38 AM

      Corporate Welfare, Crony Capitalism, Entitlement Programs, Drug War, Warfare State, National Security State and taxes in general should all be eliminated

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:43 AM

        Also, random use of capital letters should be eliminated.

        Go vote. That’s how things change.

      • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:50 AM


        “If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal”

        – Emma Goldman

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:56 AM

        It takes a brave, brave man to be a cynic.

      • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 2:16 PM

        yeah General Electric that owns NBC got over 2 billion dollars last year from pal Obama so they can change evidence on 9-11 tapes and get people like you thinking that there is a racial divide and that the system is wrong because of crony capitalism– so they post stuff like this on their sites that have no real revenue streams– but employ trolls like the author Craig Crotch-scratcher
        with our tax dollars to advance the same Marxist narrative — you advance Chili

  5. courageousdeer - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:46 AM

    Excellent idea, Dallas Braden. A couple hundred bucks per test, well worth it to catch the approx. 2% of welfare recipients who use drugs. Very fiscally responsible choice. But, what the hell, it’s not your money. Oh, wait, it is your tax money. I hope you have good financial advisers, because this kind of “money-saving” thinking will leave you broke within five years of leaving baseball. Meanwhile, mean-spirited comments like this only serve to further shame and stigmatize the working poor who would give almost anything to be earning 1% of your ridiculous salary.

    • raysfan1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:02 AM

      Do you have a source for the 2% drug use by welfare recipients claim? Not biding a smart ass, I’d really like to see actual numbers. I live in a state that does test welfare recipients–not as a money saver, but more as a “if you can afford cocaine, you don’t need welfare” kind of thing. It’s a false dichotomy in one sense, but also can indicate someone who may not be trying to help themselves & that is part of the deal. I’m not hard over in either direction, and would like to see actual data–something generally missing from these debates, or used improperly and out of context.

      • Kevin S. - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:06 AM

        The data was posted on the first page of the comments.

      • raysfan1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:29 AM

        Ok, gotta admit I don’t read all the comments when they go onto multiple pages, especially for topics that I know tend to get emotional.

      • APBA Guy - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:45 AM

        Also, your beloved Governor has steered the drug testing to his wife’s firm, so his household directly profits from the testing which is proving that very, very few welfare recipients are “on” drugs.

        This is one example of how the very rich use subsidies to become even richer.

      • raysfan1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:48 AM

        Actually my governor is a woman. I live in OK.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        Do you have a source for the 2% drug use by welfare recipients claim?

        Check my comment on the first page. tl;dr version:
        1/87000 were caught in Arizona
        2.6% of 4,000+ tests were failed in FL

        FL ended up losing money by administering the tests because the amount recovered was far less than the cost of the tests

        And oh yeah, most state supreme courts consider this action unconstitutional btw.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:58 AM

        raysfan, our law only requires testing for TANF recipients…so they can chase welfare moms. If you get any other aid (food stamps, unemployment, disability, etc), you don’t have to be tested.

      • indaburg - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:18 PM

        I live in Florida, raysfan, and the drug testing program has largely been proven to be a waste of tax payer dollars. Very few recipients actually test positive so money was being wasted testing trying to catch the few users. Money that could have been used for our terribly underpaid teachers (but my “beloved” shithead governor is against that kind of spending), or repairing our roads, or building the Rays a new stadium (I kid, I kid!! ), or crap, just about anything useful other than pissing money into a drug testing cup that’s going to be negative.

        The reason why few welfare recipients test negative? I don’t have solid proof, but if I did research I’m going to saw it us because drugs are expensive, and the poor would rather eat and keep a roof over their heads. From purely anecdotal evidence, my personal experience has been that it is thr wealthy who have the drugs. I was never offered more drugs in my life than when I was in college, and I spent my formative years in the Bronx.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        I was never offered more drugs in my life than when I was in college, and I spent my formative years in the Bronx.

        Another Fordham grad in our midst?

      • raysfan1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM

        Saw it after Kevin S told me where to look. Thanks, COPO, should’ve realized you’d be the one with the ink.

      • raysfan1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:03 PM

        Thanks for the clarification, historiophiliac.

        Indaburg, just to add to your comments–I did live in FL until my USAF career took me elsewhere. (I stayed in OK where I was last assigned for the simple reason that my best job offer was here.) I voted against the lottery when the bill came up in FL not because I care much about gambling per se, but because it is really a sneaky tax that grossly overburdens the poor. I also suspected the insistence that the money would all go to education was a lie. In a round about way I was right. Both GOP and Dem leaders have cut funding for education at times from the general budget with the justification that the lottery money is there. That is not what Floridians thought they were voting for but it is what they got.

    • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      tell that to Phil Mickelson to his face big man– 30 hours a week must really pay–what does Home Depot start at?

  6. chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 10:48 AM


    The system I would prefer would be a system base on voluntary exchange without the government gun at anyone’s back.

    • heyblueyoustink - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:03 AM

      Now you’re speaking my language.

    • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:31 PM

      The punishment for failure to pay taxes is a fine. And then jail.

      No one is killed for failure to support the government financially. Your “government gun” is outrageous hyperbole.

      • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM

        No its not hyperbole, the government gun is my analogy for force. As you pointed out, you dont pay taxes, the state puts you in a cage. What is wrong with wanting to keep the fruits of ones labor? What does the state do that the private sector cannot?

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:42 PM

        The state won World War II and went to the goddamned moon.

      • Reflex - Jul 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM

        It may be your chosen analogy but its a poor one since the penalty for tax evasion is not being shot.

        As for wanting to keep the fruits of your labor, that’s fine, but for that to work you have to agree to not accept a single benefit of the society that taxes. I do not know how that is possible without resorting to a mountain man existence.

        Furthermore, at the end of the day, what you ‘want’ is kind of irrelevant. You do not live alone, and as most children learn early on they must play well with others, and compromise their wants with the often contradictory wants of others. The way you get to realize what you want is by voting, and your right to sway others to vote others is protected by society as a whole in our constitution. You are unlikely to ever get everything you want, but then that is life, and life does not guarantee you everything you want.

        That said, over the past 80 years taxation has slowly receded on balance, and that trend does not appear to be stopping anytime soon, so I’m not really certain what the complaint is.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 31, 2013 at 4:35 PM

        Libertarianism: Selfishness, masquerading as a political philosophy.

      • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM

        Chili you will be all for anything Obama has –if he legalizes dope your empty politics have all of the earmarks of a doper who found the libertarians because you were for legalization –once Obama takes care of that special need you have –you will be bought and paid for too

    • clemente2 - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:55 PM

      I hate with the burning intensity of ten thousand suns this simple minded libertarianism. Please: research the Progressive Era and the reasons it came into existence and see what the world was like when the government left private capital alone. The economy and social conditions for the vast majority of people were a horror show when private parties were given untrammeled rights to screw people. The simple minded dumb ass, immature, selfish libertarian position exists only as a fever dream of adolescent boys (and their immature though older counterparts) yearning to break free of their fathers. As public policy, it is incoherent.

      • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:06 PM

        “The simple minded dumb ass, immature, selfish libertarian position exists only as a fever dream of adolescent boys (and their immature though older counterparts) yearning to break free of their fathers.”


        Yea Im sure people like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Jacob Hornberger, Murray Rothbard, Andrew Napolitano, Radley Balko, Justin Raimondo among others are just immature men trying to get out of their fathers shadow give me a break.

        If you knew anything about the non-aggression principal you wouldnt make such ignorant statements.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        Not only that, but it was war and disorder in the streets. You are paying for peace. We do not have riots like we used to and the Army doesn’t have to shoot desperate veterans marching on Washington for their pension.

      • clemente2 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM

        Chili–well aware, and my characterization fits.

        And Ron Paul?? Seriously. His comic version of libertarianism is just a facade for racist and social fascism. You are the one who needs to read and become knowledgable about him.

        The only ones worth thinking about are the Austrian school; and even there they have an amazing blindness to the issues the Progressives dealt with because almost all of them came of age in Europe and the trauma of communism, economic collapse, and fascism blinded them to the historical realities of the American experience into which they dropped in the 30s.

      • hitwithafade - Aug 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        Chili lets go burn one and end the aggression in your tone–okay pal

  7. regulatedmilitia - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:03 AM

    My preferred method of getting people off welfare is having a job. Even if you have to create a Gov. job make them do something. My guess is 90% of people on welfare would love to work.

    If we didn’t have a political force that is 80% corrupt changes would occur that would promote the work force in this country.

    As for Dallas Braden, baseball players have no business mouthing off about social issues unless they put their own money up to help fix it.

    • raysfan1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM

      I agree, and that was the point of the CCC and some other New Deal programs under Roosevelt.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:00 PM

        What are you going to do with those who are disabled and can’t get jobs — or the elderly (and part of the purpose of social security was to get them out of the job market to free up jobs for younger people)?

      • raysfan1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:39 PM

        I’m not implying that a new CCC/New Deal jobs program is a 100% solution, and I am happily not a politician. The commenter i responded stated the best welfare program is a job, and i agreed with that sentiment. its best for the economy and it is generally best for the individual’s sense of self worth. As for Social Security, granted, however the age was set at 65 because that was the average life expectancy at the time. By that reasoning, nobody should collect until age 78. (Not saying I agree with that reasoning.)

      • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:53 PM

        That wasn’t meant as an attack, btw. It was intended to be discursive.

      • raysfan1 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:05 PM

        Likewise. I just wanted to clarify my view.

  8. theitalianmallard - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    Well Craig you are obviously a bleeding heart liberal.

    • indaburg - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:26 PM

      You say that as if there is something wrong with that.

      I plead guilty. Proud of it too.

    • clemente2 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:07 PM

      What Craig did was point out the internal inconsistency, and thus the hypocrisy, of Braden’s comment. You should consider the implications of calling reading comprehension and rational thought “bleeding heart liberalism”.

    • APBA Guy - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM

      Either the Mallard was being sarcastic, or he only listens to Fox News and the rest of the echo chamber and doesn’t realize that calling someone a “liberal” outside that echo chamber is not greeted with gasps and fainting spells.

  9. waiverclaim - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM

    Considering that welfare takes mere millions in taxes and Bush started a war against a human emotion and not a nation-state that cost TRILLIONS, Braden can shut his stupid millionaire redneck mouth.

    If Bush only had declared a war against a specific nation, America would actually be prospering, wars do that to econimies. When you don’t “war” against a nation, you simply create a black hole money pit where the country sinks, and that’s where we are. Typical Republican idiocy: start a war you cant win, like drugs/terror/colds. Thanks for continually fucking up the country, morons.

    • waiverclaim - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:28 AM

      Someone should seriously fight Dallas Braden in a bar, the sue him, and take all his money so he ends up on welfare.

    • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:14 PM

      Actually, the Democratic way is to just give it all away for votes. AT least the Republicans appear to want people to work for it. And I would rather my taxes go to protect me and my family (defense) that be given to someone who doesn’t appreciate it, but thinks they are entitled to it.

      • clemente2 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:19 PM


      • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:29 PM

        reading your comments above, yes, you are.

  10. yardleyphils - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM


  11. lawson1974 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:27 AM

    Come on. Braden did something to earn the contract and then had injury issues. He worked hard at being a ball player and honing his skills to an elite level for two decades.

    That is not the story of most long term welfare recipients.

    • clemente2 - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59 PM

      You have no clue. After the mid-90s, most long-term welfare recipients are disabled.

  12. babyfarkmcgeezax - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:28 AM

    Craig, I still think you’re a douche, but I agree with you on this one. Braden is the ultimate jackass.

  13. jfk69 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    7 million in the bank shows what this imbecile really is. They are many more like him who find easier to attack and blame those who have no voice and really can’t fight back. Put me on survivor with this douche and when he needs a hand up see what do.
    Hey Dallas pray that 7 million never runs out.

  14. thehakko936 - Jul 31, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    Compromise solution:

    If you are arrested for posessing an illegal drug (be it a street drug or illegal possession of a prescription), then you will be drug tested if you want to continue to receive welfare. Consider it to be a random drug testing program with cause.

    Also, if you have a record with illegal drugs, then you would also be subject to the random drug testing program.

    Miss or fail a test, no check for you.

    • historiophiliac - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:02 PM

      But then you can’t catch the A-Rods!!!!!!

  15. ningenito78 - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:00 PM

    Craig seriously can’t help himself. Somebody needs to cut down his Hugging Oak.

  16. jfk69 - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:03 PM

    Braden…When your money runs out…Make mine a double patty with cheese and hold the pickles you dick

    • Andy - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:36 PM

      Oh, come on. Now that’s just ridiculous.

      Who doesn’t like pickles on their burgers?

  17. eagles512 - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:36 PM

    Bc, you do not watch fox if you think msnbc is more fair. Msnbc is nothing but Libs all day every day. Take away hannity at 9 from Fox and you have a fair network. Maybe Oreilly leans right but every segment has both views represented. Msnbc doesn’t even try to hide their insane bias.

    • chill1184 - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:40 PM

      The news MSM like the sports MSM is nothing but a complete joke and full of nothing but statist both liberal and conservative.

    • clemente2 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:01 PM

      You just proved you are an imbecile.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:02 PM

      Maybe Oreilly leans right but every segment has both views represented

      Having Colmes being a whipping boy for Hannity doesn’t make it “fair and balanced”. Also, considering Fox News continually loses for “least informed viewers on many topics”, I’d say that’s another chit in the “fair and balanced” crowd

      • barrywhererufrom - Jul 31, 2013 at 5:54 PM

        Least informed by whose standards jackass?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 8:39 PM

        I know this is difficult for you to understand, but if you click the link, and then scroll to the bottom, it lists at least 5 different studies where Fox News viewers come in last.

    • unclearnie - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      You must have a very clean brain. Faux News has done a very thorough job of washing it…

    • APBA Guy - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      I think a more accurate statement is that Fox News doesn’t even try to hide they’re insane.

  18. Carl Hancock - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:52 PM

    Is Craig paid to write for this site? If so NBC should ask for a refund. Althought maybe he needs the welfare. Whenever I read a pst by Craig he comes across as a very unhappy person. You can see it in his writing. He’s always attacking someone. Meanwhile he defends those that should be attacked (PED users). I can always read a post on here and know instantly if Craig wrote it without looking at the byline. And I don’t mean that in a good way.

  19. chiadam - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM

    MLB welfare rules!!

    – jeffrey loria

  20. eagles512 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM

    So church mentions colmes and ignores all the other Libs that Oreilly constantly has on. Shocking a lib would pick one thing and ignore the rest to make a point.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:58 PM

      So because O’Reilly has liberal guests on, that makes it even handed? Does that count all the ones he screams and yells at, and eventually throws off his show, because he doesn’t like what they have to say?

      Is this where I can make blanket statements about conservatives? About how you completely skipped over my other statements to willfully ignore the truth?

      (apologies to the many cons here who are civil, not trying to drag you into this).

  21. tbutler704 - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    I’d just like to take note this blog post has 177 comments and counting….carry on with your political arguments….you’re totally going to change everyone’s minds today!!!

  22. robertjamis - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:38 PM

    Braden is a pretty awful human being for suggesting that we have some basic conditions for receipt of welfare? And a hypocrite, because he got hurt doing a job that a minuscule portion of the population is qualified to do?

    Derp City.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:00 PM

      Braden is a pretty awful human being for suggesting that we have some basic conditions for receipt of welfare?

      He made a comment that’s a combination of: A, unconstitutional, B, trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, and C, costs more than fixing the imaginary problem.

      Links have been proved to show all three points. Took me 5 sec of googling it to find them. So yes, he should be called out for his ignorance.

      • skids003 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:32 PM

        No offense, church, but unconstitutional? Please explain. Thanks.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 31, 2013 at 8:40 PM

        The FL supreme court ruled that testing welfare recipients was a violation of their 4th amendment rights.

      • skids003 - Aug 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        Frankly, I don’t see how. If you get free stuff from the government, you should at least be clean if you don’t work for it. Thanks for the explananation though.

  23. Advanced Strength Training Programs - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:48 PM

    That kind of attitude isn’t all that surprising from a guy who gets millions to play baseball. Finding a job so you can eat meat that week, isn’t something he is familiar with. Perspective is everything in life. This is why our politics are so broken. We keep electing the same perspectives. Us vs Them. Ok. Back to sports…

    • Shayna - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:41 PM

      Not to get all “sports as life”-y on you but maybe “Back to sports” is not a change of topic here. Sports in general are zero-sum games, promote an us-vs.-them mentality, and have clearly delineated winners and losers who are seen to have ‘earned’ their fates.

      When I was a kid on the prairies, I learned to play what I called Socialist Scrabble. Like regular Scrabble except only one collective score was kept–not individual tallies, everyone worked to keep the board open and playable, and everyone had a sense of contributing positively to the ultimate outcome. We’d choose a good high number — say, 700 — and see if we couldn’t get that many points together.

      Even the weakest player became a part of the game, and no one was excluded. And even the strongest player could always find a partner to play with because they were playing /with/, not /against/ them. Subversive? You bet! But we learned the virtues of cooperation.

  24. barkleyblows - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:55 PM

    He is 100% correct!! Finally a pro athlete with a brain.

  25. jantol44 - Jul 31, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    If Torii Hunter said this would you even care?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2608)
  2. G. Stanton (2449)
  3. D. Span (2415)
  4. Y. Puig (2368)
  5. J. Fernandez (2302)
  1. B. Crawford (2254)
  2. G. Springer (2202)
  3. M. Teixeira (2129)
  4. J. Hamilton (2068)
  5. H. Pence (1930)