[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Chili, Beans or No Beans (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 3/28/2009 9:37:45 AM EDT
|
I know this has been beat to death but me and a buddy were arguing about it. Help us out.
Poll Inbound. |
|
You poll massively fails. To get a correct answer, the options should include "Beans" and "No Beans". No multiple selections, no "pie" options. Actually, the only correct poll option should be "No beans" to make it simpler for the people who don't know crap about chili to arrive at the correct answer. |
|
Quoted: chili - beans = sloppy joe. I locked my store to respond to this madness. CHILI NEEDS BEANS! Point made: People from Connecticut [ETA: And Pennsylvania too] don't know shit about chili. Thanks for playing. How about: I don't tell you how to make clam chowder, and you don't tell people from Texas what chili should be. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
chili - beans = sloppy joe. I locked my store to respond to this madness. CHILI NEEDS BEANS! Point made: People from Connecticut [ETA: And Pennsylvania too] don't know shit about chili. Thanks for playing. How about: I don't tell you how to make clam chowder, and you don't tell people from Texas what chili should be. I'm from CT and I try to tell Echo_5 NO BEANS!!! He made me put up the poll to prove him wrong. |
|
Quoted: I'm from CT and I try to tell Echo_5 NO BEANS!!! He made me put up the poll to prove him wrong. There's hope for you fellas yet. Preach it, brother. Just in case there's any confusion, here are the rules from the CHILI APPRECIATION SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL: A. CHILI COOKED ON SITE - All chili must be cooked from scratch on site the day of the cookoff. All chili must be prepared in the open (no cooking in motorhomes, etc.). 1. CHILI COOKED FROM SCRATCH - "Scratch" is defined as starting with raw meat. No marinating is allowed. Commercial chili powder is permissible, but complete commercial chili mixes ("just add meat" mixes that contain pre-measured spices) are NOT permitted. 2. NO FILLERS IN CHILI - Beans, macaroni, rice, hominy, or other similar ingredients are not permitted. 3. SANITATION - Cooks are to prepare and cook chili in as sanitary a manner as possible. a. INSPECTION OF COOKING CONDITIONS - Cooking conditions are subject to inspection by the head judge or his/her designee and CASI Referee. (Failure to comply is subject to disqualification.) b. COOKS MAY HAVE TO TASTE THEIR CHILI - At the discretion of the head judge or CASI Referee, chili cooks may be required to remove the lids from their chili cups and taste their chili before turning in for judging. (If a contestant refuses, his or her chili will be disqualified.) Funny this thread just popped up - I'm just getting ready to start a pot myself using the recipe of two-time world champion Cindy Reed. Anyone who thinks that chili without beans is just sloppy joes needs to try that recipe to find out just how wrong they are. This chili is an amazing stand-alone dish. At most, throw some pico de gallo and a little cheese on top. Anything else just ruins it. |
|
Hai I'm back...
Okay you ignorant mother fucking yankee twats. After ration, cordiality, and reason for years of these quarterly stupid fucking threads I've damned well had it - chili doesn't have fucking beans in it. Chili with beans does. See the difference? Is that so goddamned hard to fucking comprehend? Don't like it? Get a goddamned time machine and change the first laws ever written about the subject. Then start your own yankee shit-chili world chili festival - I'm sure the masses will quickly abandon the years old standard when your International Poor-fuck-filler Chili Festival kicks off. I've seen every dip-fuck irrational, delusional, window-licker comment you heathens have to offer. Spaghetti sauce? Apparently you driveling dolts don't know how to make that either - last I checked, spaghetti sauce has TOMATOES in it. Oh yeah, you nutless wonders throw that in chili, too - see beans. Oh, well perhaps it's a regional difference. For the slow ones (if you're not sure if this applies, see if you put beans in chili - if you do, this is for you) - the theory is maybe chili can mean "with beans" to someone from one (sad, pathetic) place, while it can mean without beans to folks from elsewhere. That argument would almost hold water with a somewhat rational group of people, but for this group of obsessive-compulsive socially un-adept basement dwellers that lose sleep over "clip vs mag" and take pride in the number of posts that they've made explaining flash-hider vs flash suppressor, or will collectively dedicate 8 fucking pages of a thread railing someone for calling an AR and "assault rifle" that doesn't fucking fly. You fuckers want accurate nomenclature? You fucking got it. Fucking chili doesn't have beans in it. I'm sorry that your daddy didn't make enough money at the steel mill to afford the ingredients for a proper batch of chili, and commend your mother for making do with fillers to feed your ingnorant pie-hole, but that doesn't make the shit that you ate "chili." Why can't you hemorrhaged assholes figure this the fuck out? Is it that goddamned hard? Are you so hung up on your mama that you can't face the fact that she may not have been the authority on all things? Or are you apes so culinarilly stunted that you believe "well the way we do it's gotta be right?" If you don't get it by now, there's no hope. You're fucking excrement. Not unlike a poorly trained lab rat, you can't think beyond the confines of your sad little maze. Get the fuck over (or simply go fuck) yourselves. Have a nice day, 53vortec |
|
Quoted: I've seen every dip-fuck irrational, delusional, window-licker comment you heathens have to offer. Spaghetti sauce? Apparently you driveling dolts don't know how to make that either - last I checked, spaghetti sauce has TOMATOES in it. Oh yeah, you nutless wonders throw that in chili, too - see beans. Now you've done it - someone from Cincinnati will be along shortly to get offended. I heard that their "chili" is basically that, and that it's served over spaghetti noodles. I cannot even fathom chili so nasty that it would have to be served over noodles.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it has beans it is a chilli flavored stew. Chilli, by definition, can onlyu have meat, water and spices... chili - beans = sloppy joe. I locked my store to respond to this madness. CHILI NEEDS BEANS! what the fuck? You don't know shit about chili, or even sloppy joes sloppy joes don't even have fucking chili powder in them. Beans is an add in to chili. Chili does not need beans. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
CHILI WITHOUT BEANS IS SAUCE. How, exactly, do you make tomato sauce? Because, I make "beanless" chili all the time. I also make my own tomato sauce, all the time. The two aren't even close. I think you're making one of them wrong. 
its MEAT sauce. not tomato sauce. go make sloppy joes with your beanless chili, cause thats all its good for
|
|
Quoted:
For Christ's sake... how about just eating what you like? I'm not a big fan of beans. Most times, I won't put them in my chili. Sometimes however, I'm "in the mood" for beans... so in they go. Either way... mmmm, good! This. BTW, when "real" chili was being created canned beans weren't "accessible" to your lowly cookie out on the range. Beans most certainly would have been added if it didn't take as much water to cook them as they do. Your arguments about them being filler is EXACTLY why they would have been used on the range as beans are much easier to store, they were cheap and as good of a protein as beef/lamb/pig. Basically, I will say this. I agree with 53Vortec. I'm sick and tired of this stupid argument. Texas chili has no beans, chili with beans is still chili but it's not Texas chili. BTW, I blame the TX crew for the majority of these arguments because they absolutely refuse to act civil in these threads. You know what is right and it's really not your job to educate someone, especially if they are so adamant that they are right. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For Christ's sake... how about just eating what you like? I'm not a big fan of beans. Most times, I won't put them in my chili. Sometimes however, I'm "in the mood" for beans... so in they go. Either way... mmmm, good! This. BTW, when "real" chili was being created canned beans weren't "accessible" to your lowly cookie out on the range. Beans most certainly would have been added if it didn't take as much water to cook them as they do. Your arguments about them being filler is EXACTLY why they would have been used on the range as beans are much easier to store, they were cheap and as good of a protein as beef/lamb/pig. Basically, I will say this. I agree with 53Vortec. I'm sick and tired of this stupid argument. Texas chili has no beans, chili with beans is still chili but it's not Texas chili. BTW, I blame the TX crew for the majority of these arguments because they absolutely refuse to act civil in these threads. You know what is right and it's really not your job to educate someone, especially if they are so adamant that they are right. Beans were commonplace chuckwagon fare. |
|
Quoted: Not sure I would have worded it exactly that way, but I'd have to say that is a definitive answer right there. Hai I'm back... Okay you ignorant mother fucking yankee twats. After ration, cordiality, and reason for years of these quarterly stupid fucking threads I've damned well had it - chili doesn't have fucking beans in it. Chili with beans does. See the difference? Is that so goddamned hard to fucking comprehend? Don't like it? Get a goddamned time machine and change the first laws ever written about the subject. Then start your own yankee shit-chili world chili festival - I'm sure the masses will quickly abandon the years old standard when your International Poor-fuck-filler Chili Festival kicks off. I've seen every dip-fuck irrational, delusional, window-licker comment you heathens have to offer. Spaghetti sauce? Apparently you driveling dolts don't know how to make that either - last I checked, spaghetti sauce has TOMATOES in it. Oh yeah, you nutless wonders throw that in chili, too - see beans. Oh, well perhaps it's a regional difference. For the slow ones (if you're not sure if this applies, see if you put beans in chili - if you do, this is for you) - the theory is maybe chili can mean "with beans" to someone from one (sad, pathetic) place, while it can mean without beans to folks from elsewhere. That argument would almost hold water with a somewhat rational group of people, but for this group of obsessive-compulsive socially un-adept basement dwellers that lose sleep over "clip vs mag" and take pride in the number of posts that they've made explaining flash-hider vs flash suppressor, or will collectively dedicate 8 fucking pages of a thread railing someone for calling an AR and "assault rifle" that doesn't fucking fly. You fuckers want accurate nomenclature? You fucking got it. Fucking chili doesn't have beans in it. I'm sorry that your daddy didn't make enough money at the steel mill to afford the ingredients for a proper batch of chili, and commend your mother for making do with fillers to feed your ingnorant pie-hole, but that doesn't make the shit that you ate "chili." Why can't you hemorrhaged assholes figure this the fuck out? Is it that goddamned hard? Are you so hung up on your mama that you can't face the fact that she may not have been the authority on all things? Or are you apes so culinarilly stunted that you believe "well the way we do it's gotta be right?" If you don't get it by now, there's no hope. You're fucking excrement. Not unlike a poorly trained lab rat, you can't think beyond the confines of your sad little maze. Get the fuck over (or simply go fuck) yourselves. Have a nice day, 53vortec  |
|
Quoted: Quoted: chili - beans = sloppy joe. I locked my store to respond to this madness. CHILI NEEDS BEANS! Point made: People from Connecticut [ETA: And Pennsylvania too] don't know shit about chili. Thanks for playing. How about: I don't tell you how to make clam chowder, and you don't tell people from Texas what chili should be. He asked about Chili, not Texas Red Chili.  In during all the blubbering by the Texans. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
chili - beans = sloppy joe. I locked my store to respond to this madness. CHILI NEEDS BEANS! Point made: People from Connecticut [ETA: And Pennsylvania too] don't know shit about chili. Thanks for playing. How about: I don't tell you how to make clam chowder, and you don't tell people from Texas what chili should be. He asked about Chili, not Texas Red Chili.
In during all the blubbering by the Texans. "Texas Red" is some name that a yankee trying to save face after he figured out he was wrong came up with. Have never heard it referred to as such in Texas. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
CHILI WITHOUT BEANS IS SAUCE. How, exactly, do you make tomato sauce? Because, I make "beanless" chili all the time. I also make my own tomato sauce, all the time. The two aren't even close. I think you're making one of them wrong.
its MEAT sauce. not tomato sauce. go make sloppy joes with your beanless chili, cause thats all its good for
Okay... I make tomato sauce for pasta all the time. When I want a "meat sauce", I make a meat sauce. It bears no resemblance to chili... with or without beans. If your chili, without beans, resembles pasta sauce, you're making one of them wrong. This isn't really a "Beans/No Beans" argument. If your chili is just "pasta sauce", without the inclusion of beans... try again. |
|
I don't get all worked up over the beans issue. It's an option. But if any of the "it ain't chili if it has beans" crowd puts TOMATOES or Tomato Sauce in their chili (and I'll bet that's the majority) than you're less of a chili "purist" than you think. That is the true dividing line between real chili and pretend chili. |