User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 12:39:00 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This from the same place that brought our Soldiers in Vietnam "Ham and Motherfuckers"? Granted I know that was more DoD, but still, there are some things you dont do. Beans in Chili and 4 fingers of death are not right. If you didn't eat ham & mothers its because you weren't hungry enough. It was like an Army thing to hate them...if you didn't you would be made sport of....yet in secret if you watched you would see grunts stealthfully eating H & Ms No one wanted to suffer the shame of it...but there were those who consumed it on the sly. Only thing worse was eating the new LRRP rats they gave us without water...didn't want to use up the drinking water by wasting re-hydrating a meal.... The sweet crunch crunch crunch of spaghetti & meatballs...on the fly.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 12:40:53 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The earliest reference I can find for Chili is in Wah-to-yah (and the Taos Trail) by Lewis Garrard from 1846. He clearly talks of being served Chili in the Taos Pueblo that had beans in it. So, it originally had beans. You can leave them out but them it ain’t really chili. Likewise you can leave the steak out of steak and baked potato. You might still call it steak and baked potato, but it’s really just a baked potato. Your evidence is not compelling. What country was Taos a part of in 1846? What is the slang term for the inhabitants of that country? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 12:41:02 PM EST
[#3]
So it's "chili with beans", however i have never seen a "chili without beans" label.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 12:58:00 PM EST
[#4]
FUCK YOU ARMY!!
You can add beans to chili, but CHILI HAS NO BEANS!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:09:56 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chili with beans Ergo, they added beans to chili. It's not chili.  This. Troops need the carbs though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:13:15 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US Government says "with beans". That sounds pretty authoritative to me. Case closed. Doesn't matter what the Army says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the Army and the whole world tell you that chili has beans, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, no beans.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:13:53 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it's "chili with beans", however i have never seen a "chili without beans" label. That's because there's no such thing. "Chili with beans" is just making it clear, which many find reassuring, the chili has been made correctly and isn't some kind of Texican meat sauce. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:20:06 PM EST
[#8]
"Never argue with men bearing automatic weapons." Maxwell Klinger M*A*S*H
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:31:44 PM EST
[#9]
I am shocked that they would use a cheap filler like that. Next you'll tell us that they used the cheapest ground beef they could buy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:32:57 PM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Figured a classic chili debate thread would break the "world is ending" and "sexless marrige" monotony <a href="http://s1278.photobucket.com/user/Tyler_Meroth/media/Mobile%20Uploads/14770664415851535427312_zpsdhkvnt4h.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y511/Tyler_Meroth/Mobile%20Uploads/14770664415851535427312_zpsdhkvnt4h.jpg</a> This is the same Army that decided it didn't need to keep its own CAS assets, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:35:01 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chili with beans Ergo, they added beans to chili. It's not chili. FPNI. It also explains why the US Army hasn't won a single conflict without help in the last 100 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:38:29 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FPNI. It also explains why the US Army hasn't won a single conflict without help in the last 100 years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Chili with beans Ergo, they added beans to chili. It's not chili. FPNI. It also explains why the US Army hasn't won a single conflict without help in the last 100 years.  Oh, you about to get man-loved real gentle now...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 1:39:51 PM EST
[#13]
Beans are a cheap very low taste / tasteless filler.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 2:09:58 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's because there's no such thing. "Chili with beans" is just making it clear, which many find reassuring, the chili has been made correctly and isn't some kind of Texican meat sauce. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So it's "chili with beans", however i have never seen a "chili without beans" label. That's because there's no such thing. "Chili with beans" is just making it clear, which many find reassuring, the chili has been made correctly and isn't some kind of Texican meat sauce. Says the guy from Illinois, where they think chili is made with spaghetti noodles... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 2:21:02 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't matter what the Army says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the Army and the whole world tell you that chili has beans, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, no beans.” Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The US Government says "with beans". That sounds pretty authoritative to me. Case closed. Doesn't matter what the Army says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the Army and the whole world tell you that chili has beans, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, no beans.” Why do you hate Bean Freedom? Remember that famous quote: "And ye shall know the beans - and the beans shall set your chili free." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 2:24:22 PM EST
[#16]
My mom puts macaroni noodles in chili. Chili was always one of those cheap tomato sauce based meals with a bunch of 'filler' ingredients to give it some substance. Otherwise it's just tomato based meat sauce or tomato soup. Add beans....presto, it's now chili.
Another filler type meal used a cream of mushroom soup base. Noodles, corn, etc was put in there and referred to as 'goulash'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 2:24:25 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, that's why it's called chili WITH BEANS, if it were just chili it would not have had beans. The beans are used to add filler and make it cheaper since beans are cheap calories. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Army is WRONG Beans, rice, et al are FILLERS and NOT part of true chili, which is meat and sauce and spice. If you add shit to chili that's fine, but it's FILLER, not the actual CHILI. Yep, that's why it's called chili WITH BEANS, if it were just chili it would not have had beans. The beans are used to add filler and make it cheaper since beans are cheap calories. Uh, yeah, ok? Thanks for the clarification I think... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 2:27:35 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My mom puts macaroni noodles in chili. Chili was always one of those cheap tomato sauce based meals with a bunch of 'filler' ingredients to give it some substance. Otherwise it's just tomato based meat sauce or tomato soup. Add beans....presto, it's now chili. Another filler type meal used a cream of mushroom soup base. Noodles, corn, etc was put in there and referred to as 'goulash'.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 3:37:37 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's because there's no such thing. "Chili with beans" is just making it clear, which many find reassuring, the chili has been made correctly and isn't some kind of Texican meat sauce. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So it's "chili with beans", however i have never seen a "chili without beans" label. That's because there's no such thing. "Chili with beans" is just making it clear, which many find reassuring, the chili has been made correctly and isn't some kind of Texican meat sauce. Please stick to making honey, cause you don't know diddly squat about chili 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:21:42 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The earliest reference I can find for Chili is in Wah-to-yah (and the Taos Trail) by Lewis Garrard from 1846. He clearly talks of being served Chili in the Taos Pueblo that had beans in it. So, it originally had beans. You can leave them out but them it ain’t really chili. Likewise you can leave the steak out of steak and baked potato. You might still call it steak and baked potato, but it’s really just a baked potato. There is an earlier reference than that. When my wife was in Grad school at UF (1970s) she was doing a research paper on early Florida history. She did quite a bit of research on the early Spanish community in St Augustine Florida including the food they ate. She found a recipe in the archives that consisted of meat, chilies, onions, salt and cumin. Basic chili. Cumin was a very common European spice back in those days and was not native to Florida but was brought over by ship. That was the first "chili" in America. Long before Mexico, long before Texas and long before Cincinnati. The receipt didn't call for beans but the Spanish ate a lot of beans and it was probably used as a topping for beans. Almost everything they prepared was served with beans. Her paper is the Library at UF along with all the other graduate thesis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:27:59 PM EST
[#21]
Just imagine all the paperwork the Army has on this very subject.
Someone should do a FOIA request just for ha ha's |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:29:54 PM EST
[#22]
The same army that wants a vege omelet....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:32:16 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tomato? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My mom puts macaroni noodles in chili. Chili was always one of those cheap tomato sauce based meals with a bunch of 'filler' ingredients to give it some substance. Otherwise it's just tomato based meat sauce or tomato soup. Add beans....presto, it's now chili. Another filler type meal used a cream of mushroom soup base. Noodles, corn, etc was put in there and referred to as 'goulash'. Sad slumgullion eaters That poor guy really needs to find that chili thread posted from someone from NV, iirc Decided to be nice at find it for the tomato based "chili" people http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1919538_Dinner.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:34:40 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read above its so the nancy boys dont whine when they go to eat thier chili and find the magical fruit with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If beans were a chili ingredient the label would say "chili" not "chili with beans". Read above its so the nancy boys dont whine when they go to eat thier chili and find the magical fruit with it. No - it is so labeled so that no one eats it before flying in an aircraft. You think gas is bad? Try gas at the atmospheric pressure of 8000 feet above seal level or greater. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:42:36 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the only part the Army screwed up. The normal nomenclature is "chili con carne" (chili with meat). Meat is the optional ingredient--not beans. Leave it to the Army.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If beans were a chili ingredient the label would say "chili" not "chili with beans". That's the only part the Army screwed up. The normal nomenclature is "chili con carne" (chili with meat). Meat is the optional ingredient--not beans. Leave it to the Army. Guess what "con carne" means in English. Go ahead. Neither meat nor beans are true ingredients in chili. The word "chili", with no "with" is technically a dish made with beef suet, chili peppers, onions, and spices. Intended for the cattle trails, being based on a fat was the densest way to pack calories into the riders and keep them going. As a practical matter, since there was usually a cull steer or two that wasn't going to make it to the end of the trail anyway, actual meat was often added on the trail to make "chill con carne" which is Spanish for "chili with meat". When chili began to be sold in the streets of San Antonio, it was usually made as "chili con carne", as it is tastier and easier to sell. Poor people, or bean lovers, would add beans to make "chili con frijoles" - chili with beans. This would almost never have happened on cattle drives, as beans are dired and would have to soak in water before you cook them. Beans are however a staple of fixed installations like military forts and camps, ranches, etc. Chili con carne et frijoles is mighty tasty, but when just the word "chili" is used, it is basically a dish made out of seasoned fat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:44:26 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The earliest reference I can find for Chili is in Wah-to-yah (and the Taos Trail) by Lewis Garrard from 1846. He clearly talks of being served Chili in the Taos Pueblo that had beans in it. So, it originally had beans. You can leave them out but them it ain’t really chili. Likewise you can leave the steak out of steak and baked potato. You might still call it steak and baked potato, but it’s really just a baked potato. No. Adding beans was not uncommon, but they are not a part of chili. Adding cheese to crackers is not uncommon. Doesn't mean that if you just say "crackers", you expect there to be cheese with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:47:00 PM EST
[#27]
May you have to wrap yourself in your poncho on a cold, rainy night, after trading your maple nut cake for an extra pouch of Chii with Beans, OP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 4:48:41 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My mom puts macaroni noodles in chili. Chili was always one of those cheap tomato sauce based meals with a bunch of 'filler' ingredients to give it some substance. Otherwise it's just tomato based meat sauce or tomato soup. Add beans....presto, it's now chili. Another filler type meal used a cream of mushroom soup base. Noodles, corn, etc was put in there and referred to as 'goulash'. Chili does not have tomatoes in it. You are free to add tomatoes or tomato sauce or ketchup - just as you are free to add meat, cheese, rice, beans, noodles, ground up crackers - whatever. But there are no tomatoes in Chili. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 5:40:28 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guess what "con carne" means in English. Go ahead. Neither meat nor beans are true ingredients in chili. The word "chili", with no "with" is technically a dish made with beef suet, chili peppers, onions, and spices. Intended for the cattle trails, being based on a fat was the densest way to pack calories into the riders and keep them going. As a practical matter, since there was usually a cull steer or two that wasn't going to make it to the end of the trail anyway, actual meat was often added on the trail to make "chill con carne" which is Spanish for "chili with meat". When chili began to be sold in the streets of San Antonio, it was usually made as "chili con carne", as it is tastier and easier to sell. Poor people, or bean lovers, would add beans to make "chili con frijoles" - chili with beans. This would almost never have happened on cattle drives, as beans are dired and would have to soak in water before you cook them. Beans are however a staple of fixed installations like military forts and camps, ranches, etc. Chili con carne et frijoles is mighty tasty, but when just the word "chili" is used, it is basically a dish made out of seasoned fat. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If beans were a chili ingredient the label would say "chili" not "chili with beans". That's the only part the Army screwed up. The normal nomenclature is "chili con carne" (chili with meat). Meat is the optional ingredient--not beans. Leave it to the Army. Guess what "con carne" means in English. Go ahead. Neither meat nor beans are true ingredients in chili. The word "chili", with no "with" is technically a dish made with beef suet, chili peppers, onions, and spices. Intended for the cattle trails, being based on a fat was the densest way to pack calories into the riders and keep them going. As a practical matter, since there was usually a cull steer or two that wasn't going to make it to the end of the trail anyway, actual meat was often added on the trail to make "chill con carne" which is Spanish for "chili with meat". When chili began to be sold in the streets of San Antonio, it was usually made as "chili con carne", as it is tastier and easier to sell. Poor people, or bean lovers, would add beans to make "chili con frijoles" - chili with beans. This would almost never have happened on cattle drives, as beans are dired and would have to soak in water before you cook them. Beans are however a staple of fixed installations like military forts and camps, ranches, etc. Chili con carne et frijoles is mighty tasty, but when just the word "chili" is used, it is basically a dish made out of seasoned fat. And thus ends the argument, that chili has no beans |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2016 6:12:09 PM EST
[#30]
I like chili pie myself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:08:12 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
May you have to wrap yourself in your poncho on a cold, rainy night, after trading your maple nut cake for an extra pouch of Chii with Beans, OP. Woah now that chili was suprisingly good but that mapel nut cake no longer come in MREs, ponchos and cold rainy night production has been cranked up to overdrive however
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:14:05 PM EST
[#32]
There are no tomatoes in real chili. Period.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:15:44 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The earliest reference I can find for Chili is in Wah-to-yah (and the Taos Trail) by Lewis Garrard from 1846. He clearly talks of being served Chili in the Taos Pueblo that had beans in it. So, it originally had beans. You can leave them out but them it ain’t really chili. Likewise you can leave the steak out of steak and baked potato. You might still call it steak and baked potato, but it’s really just a baked potato. That's a really retarded analogy, sir. Chili con carne means chili peppers with meat. There are no beans in the name of the dish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:16:09 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My mom puts macaroni noodles in chili. Chili was always one of those cheap tomato sauce based meals with a bunch of 'filler' ingredients to give it some substance. Otherwise it's just tomato based meat sauce or tomato soup. Add beans....presto, it's now chili. Another filler type meal used a cream of mushroom soup base. Noodles, corn, etc was put in there and referred to as 'goulash'. ETA: In the same vein, "Look at this great BBQ!"  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:17:33 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guess what "con carne" means in English. Go ahead. Neither meat nor beans are true ingredients in chili. The word "chili", with no "with" is technically a dish made with beef suet, chili peppers, onions, and spices. Intended for the cattle trails, being based on a fat was the densest way to pack calories into the riders and keep them going. As a practical matter, since there was usually a cull steer or two that wasn't going to make it to the end of the trail anyway, actual meat was often added on the trail to make "chill con carne" which is Spanish for "chili with meat". When chili began to be sold in the streets of San Antonio, it was usually made as "chili con carne", as it is tastier and easier to sell. Poor people, or bean lovers, would add beans to make "chili con frijoles" - chili with beans. This would almost never have happened on cattle drives, as beans are dired and would have to soak in water before you cook them. Beans are however a staple of fixed installations like military forts and camps, ranches, etc. Chili con carne et frijoles is mighty tasty, but when just the word "chili" is used, it is basically a dish made out of seasoned fat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If beans were a chili ingredient the label would say "chili" not "chili with beans". That's the only part the Army screwed up. The normal nomenclature is "chili con carne" (chili with meat). Meat is the optional ingredient--not beans. Leave it to the Army. Guess what "con carne" means in English. Go ahead. Neither meat nor beans are true ingredients in chili. The word "chili", with no "with" is technically a dish made with beef suet, chili peppers, onions, and spices. Intended for the cattle trails, being based on a fat was the densest way to pack calories into the riders and keep them going. As a practical matter, since there was usually a cull steer or two that wasn't going to make it to the end of the trail anyway, actual meat was often added on the trail to make "chill con carne" which is Spanish for "chili with meat". When chili began to be sold in the streets of San Antonio, it was usually made as "chili con carne", as it is tastier and easier to sell. Poor people, or bean lovers, would add beans to make "chili con frijoles" - chili with beans. This would almost never have happened on cattle drives, as beans are dired and would have to soak in water before you cook them. Beans are however a staple of fixed installations like military forts and camps, ranches, etc. Chili con carne et frijoles is mighty tasty, but when just the word "chili" is used, it is basically a dish made out of seasoned fat. Ok, this answer has to be permanently tacked so this question never comes up again. Chili contains neither meat nor beans. But meat was a more likely ingredient than beans. Unless you are a poor Mexican. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:24:33 PM EST
[#36]
You can add beans to chili. If you do, it's called soup
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:38:39 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can add beans to chili. If you do, it's called soup You done fucked up if by adding beans to "chili" it becomes soup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:42:39 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US Government says "with beans". That sounds pretty authoritative to me. Case closed. Ah, but the need to specify beans means that chili does not automatically have beans. Otherwise, why would they need to point out the beans? Also, I spent a few years eating army chow. They are not to be trusted when it comes to what is or isn't normal with food. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 10:45:16 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chili with beans Ergo, they added beans to chili. It's not chili. It's an MRE, is it technically even food? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2016 5:47:23 AM EST
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2016 11:01:21 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's an MRE, is it technically even food? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Chili with beans Ergo, they added beans to chili. It's not chili. It's an MRE, is it technically even food? LOL moot point! 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
