« More Fear and Loathing in WCCC. | Main | Instant Karma's gonna get you! »


Ok, I had this discussion the other night with my wife who was talking about chili. She said something about having chili without beans, to which I replied then "that is not chili". So here is the question:

What qualifies chili? Does there have to be beans in it for it to be chili?

I would like to have some feed back on this for arguments sake.

Here is my argument:
Chili needs beans. For chili to be called chili there needs to be beans. Chili without beans is just spicy spaghetti sauce. Chili with beans and pasta in it is called past fusul. My wife whole heartedly disagrees with my opinion and I would like to hear from some outside agents to weigh in on the discussion.

Comments (2)


I would agree with my man Mitch here. I thought the beans you used, the main ingrediant, were chili beans. Am I wrong with that assumption?


I agree with Mitchell. When I make Pasta fusul, I use Great Northern Beans and a sauce base. When I make chili, I use kidney beans with tomato soup. I've never heard of a chili without beans. Sorry, Shannon. Mitchell wins the arguement.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 24, 2008 10:17 AM.

The previous post in this blog was More Fear and Loathing in WCCC..

The next post in this blog is Instant Karma's gonna get you!.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.