De Blasio dropped a lot
less red meat about education after he became the runaway front - runner, giving skeptical reformers their first reason for hope: perhaps de Blasio is a practiced pol but not an ideologue.
Not exact matches
But just telling people
about the health co-benefits of physical exercise and eating
less red meat isn't enough to garner change on its own.
Chicken has
about the same or maybe a little more cholesterol than
red meat, but much
less saturated fat.
What makes a question
about the reasoning of someone who believes that ID is a «scientific theory,» based on «scientific evidence» become more or
less of a «
red meat diversion» than someone who believes that a climate scientist is driven by a «pissant leftist» agenda, or career aspirations, or a dogmatic devotion to the «religion of AGW?»