James Dobson: Ted Haggard Gay Cure Could Take “4 or 5 Years”

Wednesday night almost seems like ancient history, but James Dobson’s appearance on Larry King Live is too rich to overlook.

Dobson told King that he excused himself from the “three person restoration panel” overlooking his “close friend” Ted Haggard because it might be 2010 before Haggard is heterosexual:

“I called my board of directors, we talked about it at length and they were unanimous in asking me not to do that, because this could take four or five years and I just have too many other things going on.”

Dobson says he hasn’t talked to his “close friend” since it happened. Dobson also told King that liberals have no values, Congress was “courageous” in trying to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, and the separation of church and state is not in the Bill of Rights.

Jones_leddickMeanwhile, in Miami over the weekend, gay escort Mike Jones sat down with author David Leddick who is writing a new book called Escort, featuring escorts, their profiles, and photographs. Said Leddick: ”Forty profiles with photographs of men who sell sex. I’m not taking a moral position myself. It’s fascinating.” Jones is to be the centerpiece of that book.

Jones told the Miami Herald that he has received plenty of criticism from other escorts angry that he disrespected the privacy of the escort/client relationship. But he said the hypocrisy was too much: “All the escorts are [angry] with me. This was such a unique situation. I could have ruined many careers in my day. A lot of politicians and athletes and clergy. But none of them got up and ranted and raved about homosexuality.”

He has also been criticized for the tumult created within the pastor’s family by going public. His response: “People have scolded me for that, particularly right-wing people. But did Ted Haggard go to his wife and say, ‘I’m going to have a gay affair. Is this going to hurt you and the kids?’ I don’t want to have this guilt over my head.”

Jones also wants to make sure the public knows he’s not a prostitute: ”I was an escort, all right? Not everyone I went with wanted sex. I think I give escorts a good name.”

You may have missed….
Hating Begins at Home: The Creation of James Dobson [tr]
Ted Haggard Letter: “I am Guilty…a Deceiver and a Liar” [tr]


  1. Arc says

    That was an interesting interview… I actually agree with some of the things James Dobson was saying about the nature of being gay. I genuinely believe that being gay is a combination of environmental and genetic factors. Whether or not it is to do with parental neglect or abuse is another matter… I’m a gay man who is currently dating a man who’s identical twin brother is straight but neither of us were neglected or abused by our respective fathers (to my knowledge).

    It is a contravercial question to be sure… but more contravercial is the debate on whether a person can change their sexuality without being severly mentally disturbed as a result.

    I am glad that James Dobson made his points so clearly and calmly without resorting to hate and relying completely on biblical quotations.


  2. xavier says

    Dobson is deranged. Selectively deranged, that is. The ex-gay thing is not going to fly and he’s trying to save face. And the separation of church and state is not in the Bill of Rights? These wingnuts have very ‘special’ readings of any kind of documents. Be it the Bill of Rights or the Bible. Ugh.

  3. mark m says

    Dobson has other things on his plate. Like working on his project to reduce the temperature in Hell to minus 20 degrees and genetically engineering pigs to grow wings.

  4. bbalike says

    Is it just me or does that picture of Mike Jones with that author look like he’s sitting down for a gab fest with the pope?

    All that’s missing are those red Prada loafers for Pope Benedict…

  5. westvill says

    Actually, the words “separation of church and state” do not exist in the constitution of the US. Just like the words “right to privacy” do not exist in the constitution. Both of those sayings derive from common law court rulings of the supreme court. What the first amendment actually says is:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…..”

    So, in reality, this just forbids the creation of a “state” religion, but it does not say that religion can not affect the state. Don’t get me wrong, I am agnostic and do not believe religion should have a place in determining what the laws should be, but from a legal perspective, he is quite right that the words “separation of church and state” are not in the constitution, and can only be inferred by reading it in a certain way.

  6. Bobby says

    Hey, let’s take 3 years and convert Dobson. Oh wait, I bet he’s already gay.

    Fuck those people and anyone who doesn’t believe we’re born this way. Yeah, some might switch when it’s convenient but for me, I’ve always been and will always be gay. It’s just the way I’m wired.

    Oh, first born boy, never abused, never mistreated, never molested, parents still married and they shared equally in raising us. I break that stereotype into many splintered pieces.

  7. Matt says

    I find it funny that he says there is a distinction between escort and prostitute. I had a friend who was at one time an escort and he did the same things that prostitutes do except walk the streets. I guess there is a prostitution heiracrchy.

  8. jimmyboyo says


    true to a point
    but this is where extra constitutional sources come in handy

    Oh, like the writings of 1 of the founding fathers of our democracy Thomas jefferson…..”The wall of seperation between church and state is to protect the state from the church”

  9. jimmyboyo says


    Jefferson wrote that and many of the founding fathers wrote thusly

    “lighthouses are more helpful than churches” benjamin Franklin

    “A just government founded on liberty has no need of the cleregy” Madison

    “all manner of follishness has come about due to the ABSURD doctrine of the divinity of jesus” Adams


    because they were children of the enlightenment and had seen first hand the devestation the church does to the state via the churches power grabs in europe

  10. says

    You know what I don’t get. He, like so many, argue so strongly in favor of what they think turns people gay: that it’s something that happens in early childhood. Why? If it’s not genetic, it’s somehow okay to persecute us.

    But even IF it ocurred in early childhood, what’s the difference? The child STILL had no choice in the matter – so why persecute him? Heck, why should it matter whether it’s a choice or not even if someone “decided” to be gay late in life? He or she isn’t hurting anyone.

    What’s really laughable, in his explanation, is the fact that he says being gay happens to boys attached to their mothers – with no fathers later in life to turn them in the right direction.

    Um…. hello…. what about women? These nuts only consider gay men a threat. There are some serious, pshychological questions as to why that’s the case. Personally, I think almost everyone has at least some innate feelings of attraction to the same sex, or did when they were growing up, or something. Otherwise, I just don’t get why people are way more afraid of gay men than lesbians. Anyone have any other thoughts as to why?

  11. westvill says

    Yes, Jimmyboyd, I understand that the framers opined to that extent in the federalist papers and other writings. However, many opinions in the writings by the framers were never incorporated into the constitution. Why? Maybe b/c it wouldn’t have been ratified it it was included? Further, we can look to the potential devastation and misguided logic of relying too closely on framers intent…say the Dredd Scott decision. It was a horrific opinion, but by all accounts it was a sound interpretation of the intent of many of the framers: the want of the southern states to keep the ability to trade slaves, therefore defining a “citizen” narrowly in the constitution through the use of original intent logic.

    My point is, that a living document approach makes more sense for a republic that is vastly different from that of when the founders framed the constitution. Should we rely too heavly on a “originalist” interpretation, we are stepping into one of the more slippery parts of a the slippery slope.

    I think that instead of trying to enter their originalist debate, it is better to not allow originalist interpretation at all, b/c I think it is flawed from the start. I think we are best served by converting everyone to a living document theory, b/c it is nearly impossible to use an originalist interpretation b/c 1) its impossible to determine what the original intent was (who’s intent?) and 2) even if the original intent was verifiable, why should it be relevant today, when we have a vastly different society socially, economically, information wise, and medically?

  12. Anon says

    “Separation of church and state” is just a handy way of rephrasing consitutional intent. Its meaning is there, even if the phrasing is not. Dobson, a developmental psychologist from UCLA and not a minister or reverend, by the way, is using very outdating thinking on childhood development when it comes to gay men. This stuff was disproven years ago. It is no longer controversial in psychology just as evolution is no longer controversial in biology. He must be pretty certain that Haggard cannot be “cured” because one can be certain that he would like the publicity that results from having a poster “man” of the ex-gay movement like Haggard–something Dobson realizes he will never become. Dobson and other leaders of evangelicals are cynical politicians taking money from naive congregants. Mike Jones did the right thing despite “escorts” telling him otherwise. Haggard, in his “confession” told other conservatives that Jones should not be blamed for what happened, which was a nice thing to say, but will they be nice enough to leave him alone? Apparently not.

  13. Anon says

    If we are going to have a “living” constitution, we might as well burn the thing because that is a certain recipe for rule of men rather than rule of law. Would you like to live in a world with six Scalias or Borks on the SC? Be careful what you wish for.

  14. westvill says

    Actually, I wouldn’t like to have 6 Scalias or Borks…b/c they are the flag bearers of the originalist idea. Further, most interpretations which have found more protections under the 1st and 14th amendments were largely b/c they espoused a living document approach rather than an originalist approach.

    You can’t say that you follow an originalist approach at all times, b/c then how would you reconcile many modern day occurances under the orginalist idea? For instance ecommerce and the commerce clause? “among the states” becomes quite a bit more complicated when you try to only apply an original view.

  15. Leland says

    ARC: Dobson deserves an Emmy for how often his phony act as a benign, harmless, sincere Christian works. It worked on you. It’s insulting to one of the greatest Americans [Lincoln] that one of our vilest [Dobson] has a new grandson named after him. But TOO ironic for words, that they gave it the middle name “Cash” given that gran’pappy has become a multimillionaire cultivating and exploiting homophobia. As always, it’s pitiful that right after King [who made a decent if too uninformed effort to refute Dobson’s homohysterical theocracy] has someone like Dobson on, it’s followed by Anderson Coward Cooper. This report from People for the American Way shows the real Dobson:

    “Focus on the Family founder and chairman James Dobson is perhaps the most influential right-wing Christian leader in the country, with a huge and loyal following that he can reach easily through an impressive media empire. He is a household name for millions of parents and families who have come to know him through his parenting advice books and videos. He is increasingly using his goodwill and media access to promote far-right politics and politicians, and to push the Republican Party to more vigorously adopt the Religious Right’s social agenda. Yet many Americans probably heard of him for the first time … thanks to SpongeBob SquarePants. When Dobson argued that an educational video featuring a number of popular children’s cartoon characters advanced the homosexual agenda, he was ridiculed for “outing” SpongeBob.1 In fact, Dobson wasn’t asserting that SpongeBob is gay, but that teaching children to be tolerant of those different from themselves, particularly gays and lesbians, is a sinister proposition.2

    Dobson’s stance – equating tolerance with evil – reflects the extremism of his policy positions and his unforgiving stance toward those who disagree with him. While his comments about SpongeBob were deserving of ridicule, Dobson must not be dismissed as a buffoon. In fact, it is urgently important that journalists and other Americans pay closer attention to the positions Dobson promotes – and his influence with the politicians he is [helps] get elected.

    While Dobson made a name for himself as an avuncular purveyor of parenting advice, he now uses that power to promote a range of troubling views and candidates who share those views:
    •He says the gay rights movement is seeking the “utter destruction of the family and likens proponents of marriage equality to the Nazis. FOF works against “special rights” for homosexuals and hate crime legislation, and supports “reparative therapy” for homosexuality, which has been widely discredited and rejected by the vast majority of doctors and physicians. FOF sponsors “Love Won Out,” conferences held around the U.S. that claim to prove that “homosexuality is preventable and treatable,” where many of the speakers are “ex-gays.” “Love Won Out” is from the title of a book by John Paulk, an “ex-gay” who is the host of the conferences and is an employee of Focus on the Family. For those ex-gays who cannot change, FOF considers sexual celibacy another option. FOF regularly asserts the idea that there is a “homosexual agenda” and associates homosexuals with pedophilia and recruitment of children as sex partners.
    •He has backed candidates who call for the execution of abortion providers, including … U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn
    •He strongly opposes embryonic stem cell research, which he calls “state-funded cannibalism”
    •He urges parents to abandon the public school system
    •He supports a constitutional amendment that would permit coercive organized prayer in public schools, and supported a state Supreme Court justice who defied federal court orders so that he could use his position as a judge to promote his personal religious beliefs
    Dobson has a massive radio empire and millions of followers he regularly exhorts to action, increasingly on behalf of right-wing Republican candidates to public office. In 2004, Dobson created a new political organization, endorsed approximately 25 Republican candidates (including President Bush), and campaigned for successful right-wing Senate candidates. As the election approached, Dobson and other Religious Right leaders participated in weekly strategy sessions with the Bush reelection campaign. Focus on the Family (FOF) sponsored the “I Vote Values” initiative, aimed at encouraging more religious conservatives to register and vote. Meanwhile, Dobson used his daily radio program to pressure Congress to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

    Dobson, like his Religious Right colleagues, [has urged] President Bush and congressional leaders to aggressively pursue the right wing’s social agenda and pack the federal courts with ideologues who share their worldview. And Dobson, in his trademark bullying political style, [threatens] retaliation against anyone who is not sufficiently fervent.

    In spite of his place at the center of right-wing politics in America, Dobson likes to cultivate the sense that he would rather not be playing politics. In August 2004, during the height of what was for Dobson an extremely active campaign season, he bristled: “It bothers me a lot, because 95 percent of what we do here [at Focus on the Family] is not related to public policy. And yet whenever the media comes here, all they want to talk about is who I’m supporting for the presidency.” It sometimes seems as though Dobson is protesting too much. Frequently, the political endorsement he gives is prefaced with an I don’t do this very often caveat. And, he claims not to be a Republican, but rather to represent those who “stand for moral principles and values.” Yet year after year, Republican politicians travel to FOF’s Colorado Springs campus, attempting to curry favor with Dobson. Almost as regularly, Dobson threatens to punish the GOP for failing to be sufficiently committed to his ultraconservative agenda on such social issues as abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. But Dobson has had some success with shaping his coverage in the media; scarcely an election cycle goes by without another profile portraying Dobson as a reluctant warrior newly entering the world of politics.

    Founder: Dr. James C. Dobson
    President/Chief Executive Officer: James D. Daly
    Established: 1977
    Finances: $137,848,520 (2004 Focus on the Family revenue); $24,988,036 (2004 Focus on the Family Action revenue)
    Staff: approximately 1,300 employees
    Publications: 2.3 million subscribers to ten monthly magazines. Magazine titles include: Focus on the Family, Citizen Magazine, Parental Guidance, Clubhouse and Clubhouse Jr. Focus on the Family also publishes a wide variety of books, tapes, films and videos.
    Media: Dr. Dobson is heard daily on more than 3,400 radio facilities in North America, in 15 languages, on approximately 6,300 facilities in 164 countries. Dobson’s estimated listening audience is over 220 million people every day, including a program translation carried on all state-owned radio stations in the Republic of China. In the United States, Dobson appears on 80 television stations daily.
    State affiliates: FOF is affiliated with 36 state groups such as the Pennsylvania Family Institute, the North Carolina Policy Council and the Rocky Mountain Family Council.
    Affiliate groups: Focus on the Family Institute, FOF’s college program, and Focus on the Family Action, which is FOF’s cultural action organization formed under the IRS section 501(c)(4). FOF has 74 different international ministries and has established conservative Christian ministries for attorneys, doctors, teachers, and other groups.”

  16. JT says

    Two things, Leland: First, well done! You used “avuncular!” Next, For Dog’s sake, Lighten up on Mr. Cooper! Damn, boy, you’re getting fixated on that young, extraordinarily good-looking man who has probably some of the sexiest hands in the world. I mean, have you ever seen the veins on his hands? They’re gorgeous. And just look at his nails. I don’t think he gets manicures. I think he’s blessed with perfect hands.

  17. tjc says

    Ryan — you’re points are right on.

    However, the choice issue is one of distraction: IT DOESN’T MATTER IF IT’S A CHOICE.
    Anti-gay discrimination is still wrong, choice or no choice.

    Personally, I do not think being gay is a choice. But it doesn’t matter.

    We need to reframe the argument away from the choice idea and back to the real issues.

  18. Anon says

    LK missed a chance (go figure…) to ask Dobson a few interesting questions:

    What do you make of the Westboro Baptist Church and their moral “crusade”?

    Do you recommend that VP Dick Cheney’s daughter receive restorative therapy to cure her of her homosexuality?

    Oh well…

  19. Leland says

    You’re welcome, JT, but I can’t take credit for that lovely word “avuncular,” or any of it after my introduction. That’s all text from PFAW [save my bracketed time-related inserts]. I’m afraid I can’t be any kinder to Mr. Cooper, but I would be willing to watch him give you a hand job. :-)

    Also, for those uninterested in the details about Dobson, I’m sorry it turned out to be so long. But that’s why Baby Jesus gave us the miracle of the scroll bar. I think that’s in Ephesians, chapter 2.

  20. JT says

    Well, damn, Leland, whoever wrote that has the same nasty, snarky quality in his/her writing as you! Hmm a hand job? I hadn’t thought of that.

  21. peterparker says

    Nice work, Leland!

    I would also add that Dobson advocates spanking children even though almost any credible child psychologist no longer endorses spanking as an effective (or caring) child rearing technique. Of course, Dobson is far from credible outside of fundamentalist circles…hell, even the Bush camp apparently made fun of the fundies.

    When asked how long a child should be allowed to cry after a spanking, Dobson responded, “Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears.”

    Dobson also advocates spanking a child with an object such a paddle or a switch rather than an adult using the hand to spank. His belief is that this preseves the parent’s hand as an object of love. When I trained as a psychotherapist, hearing that a child had been hit with an object (such as a paddle or switch) triggered an automatic call to Child Protective Services to report child abuse.

  22. jimmyboyo says




    I thought you were coming from a “NOT living document” view point.

    We totaly agree then.

  23. Anon says

    A “living” constitution is a “dying” constitution, but there have been so many messed up SC rulings over the years that both sides of the debate are on shaky ground. There are some technical fixes to the amendment process that would help, but using the SC to amend the constitution because it’s so convenient is always worrisome. You win on “abortion” and don’t notice you’re losing on the 4th and 1st amendments. This doesn’t have much to do with Dobson though.

    LK might have politely asked:

    So, is Islam the final word of God and should we convert?

    He did ask mild questions about Mormons though.

  24. jimmyboyo says

    A “living” constitution is a “dying” constitution


    in nature = reality…anything that does not/ can not evolve/ change ….ADAPT to changing circumstances dies. deader than dead.

    Reality is in constant change/ flux. Nothing in the world lasts forever. Heck, once when in egypt I looked out across a landscape that once saw mighty gods rule over men for thousands upon thousands of years. Nothing but the wind and blowing dust remains and the wind does not care.

    Nothing stays the same in nature/ reality. If our government/ constitution does not adapt to the ever changing world then it is deader than dead. Inability to adapt in nature= bye bye

  25. mark m says

    No one ever asks the kind of questions I want asked of Dobson. Like, why is it that homosexuality is such a threat to families when the divorce rate is so high and child abuse (all kinds) is all too common.

    I’m sure his answer would be some clever pat on the back about having the right values etc etc….but I still have never heard anyone challenge a wingnut on the subject of divorce and why homosexuality is so much more a threat to marriage.

    I know the reason of course. Take your pic: internalized sexual repression, mysogeny, bigotry, or just plain disgust over what homos do naked. But I still would like to hear someone press them on the subject and ask for a clarification.

  26. Anon says

    jimmyb: it’s a technical issue regarding how to amend the constitution. No one is saying you can’t amend the constitution, the problem is the manner in which it is done. Right now, it’s done in backrooms at the SC with no input from the public. This is a huge problem. One day the 1st amendment means this, then the next day it means that, so on and so on. It’s crazy.

  27. Leland says

    Infuriatingly, the mainstream media has been TOTALLY complicitous in allowing the American Taliban’s Big Lies about gay marriage fester and grow. Hack that he is, King tried to a degree to challenge him, but then backed down. And, as I’ve ranted many times, our national groups keep letting them get away with it. They don’t have the balls [or sense] to take out ads that simply call Dobson et al. LIARS [and then explaining in the simplest terms why]. They keep doing passive ads [when they do anything at all] about how wonderful gay relationships are. Well, true, but that DOESN’T answer the brainwashing about what our legalization will allegedly do to THEIR relationships. They’re dropping bombs and we’re throwing flowers.

  28. jimmyboyo says


    I disagree

    Though I would prefer the court to have 1 less scalia etc….the so-called back room rulings/ amendments you mention are in a sense a good thing.

    The founding fathers thought the masses were ignorant and didn’t know what was best for them to begin with and thus we have a republic and we also have the electoral college.

    To just wait till a national vote comes along to amend the constitution means you will probably be waiting forever. Sadly, the founders were correct in fearing the masses. The masses are ignorant. A sad but true fact. Heck…America ranks as the 2nd to lowest country on the list of countries who teach/believe in evolution. America ranks somewhere around 23rd in education….AFTER Poland. Poland a former soviet satellite and barely 2nd world country. The american masses are beyond ignorant.

  29. westvill says

    I think that is a bit overstated…(today the court determines it means one thing and tomorrow another). The court generally has a very high regard for precedent and in turn stare decisis. The major issues in cases largely turn on the facts, and there are times where the facts are just different in a way that it defines how a right should be protected, but in an earlier ruling, the facts did not grant the court pause to protect.

    I feel that a vast majority if not all of the justices have a great respect for the constitution, and try to avoid entering the political fray as much as possible. However, unfortunately, the issues that they face are political, b/c laws by their very nature of their creation are the political process.

  30. So Left I'm Right says

    Dobson’s so busy being an anti-gay bigot he doesn’t have time to “help” his “friends”.

    You know, there are certain people, very few, whom I would like to see in the proverbial pits of Hell, tortured for all eternity. If what they claim is actually true about the afterlife, I have no doubt, and take some level of comfort, that Dobson, Jesse Helms, and Pat Robertson, among others, will burn long and slow, and I will light my Cuban cigar on their festering evil flames.

  31. Aaron says

    First to TJC. Thank you thank you thank you! The debate needs to be framed in terms of democratic values–the origins of sexual orientation should be irrelevant. Democracy is about expanding choices, not constraining them. In the end, whether or not same-sex attraction is a choice, engaging in same-sex behavior certainly is. Relying on the genes/biology argument is a failing strategy even if it may sway some people in the short term.

    To Ryan: The social science literature consistently shows that gay men receive more negative ratings than lesbians across a variety of measures, as you indicated. While there is no conclusive evidence as to why this is the case, some possibilities come to mind. 1) The negative attitudes towards gay men tend to be driven by heterosexual men and not by heterosexual women (het women tend to rate gay men and lesbians similarly). 2) As such, it could be that heterosexual men are eroticizing lesbians, while of course, not eroticizing gay men, thus bumping up the lesbian scores relative to gay men. 3) To the extent that society still favors men over women, gay men (who are stereotyped as being “like women”) could be seen as abdicating their role as men (i.e. “the only thing worse than a women is a man who acts like one”) 4) It seems to be the case that there is more at stake for a man to preserve his masculinity than for a woman to preserve her femininity–therefore, a man must work harder than women to maintain his masculinity. Part of this process is the derogation of anything or anyone that threatens that masculinity. Gay men certainly are more threatening in this sense than lesbians b/c gay men remind heterosexuals of the possibility of being gay themselves. Let’s face it, masculinity is fragile and requires constant monitoring and reaffirmation.

    Just a few thoughts. Certainly not a comprehensive list and I’m not claiming they are definitive.

    Best to all.

  32. Terry says

    I just love it when the far right refers to the founders of the Republic as Christians, none of the following were, they were deist’s
    George Washington
    Thomas Jefferson
    James Madison
    James Monroe
    John Tyler
    Abraham Lincoln
    Benjamin Franklin
    John Adams
    John Quincy Adams
    Millard Fillmore
    William Howard Taft

  33. Nikko says

    The dung that is Dobson and his “christian” ilk perpetuate their lies and truly believe them. There is no such thing as going from gay to straight, period. The history of psychotherapy proves that. I am living proof. Choice and/or not, we have the right to be protected, just as christians and other religious fucks are not born religious, but choose their religion, and they are protected. What hypocrisy!!!

  34. Anon says

    Well, okay, let’s imagine that it’s five years on and Haggard hasn’t been “cured”. What are we to make of that situation? Will his admission of being permanently gay help the gay cause or not?

    One has to argue Dobson’s points all the way up and down the line too. Even if gayness were caused by early childhood environments, would we know how to “cure” the resulting “personality disorder”? Are the current methods being used effective? (I think we can say no to that one already.) So, we need to show Dobson is wrong on many levels: His techniques are changing anyone; No techniques have been shown to alter sexual orientation; It probably would be more harmful to do what is necessary to alter a person’s orientation than to leave them alone; There is no evidence of an “objective personality disorder” in homosexual men or women; There is no evidence of environmental childhood developmental causes of homosexuality; and no objective psychologist would conflate scripture and scriptural injunctions with modern clinical psychology. Could he be more wrong? People believe him because they want to. You’d persuade a fair percentage with logical arguments, but most of the rest would need to have their desires altered in the sense that they are losing more than they are gaining by holding on to false ideas.

  35. says

    gezien het verhaal uiteindelijk verteld wordt vanuit het standpunt van Ryan Reynolds. ugg stiefel
    De film vertoond wel een aantal zwaktes, ugg maar het schittert hoe dan ook met een intelligent script en charmeert ons met uitstekende vertolkingen. ugg boots