We know that the earliest recipes for chili had beans in them because it was originally food for poor people. That pretty much decides the debate for anyone interested in authenticity. Originally poor people in Texas made chili because it was cheap and they used cheap fillers like beans to help make it more filling. The main reason so much chile pepper and spices were used in the dish? Because stores would sell meat which was slightly off at a big discount before it went total rancid and they had to throw it out. Poor folks would buy that discount slightly funky meat to save money then spice the hell out of it to cover up any "off" tastes. Then it was just a matter of adding in other poor folks staples like beans and tomatoes from their garden, add some salt, and stew for several hours. It was cheap, filling, and tasty so it quickly caught on.
Maybe my mom did soak them, I don't know. I just know I hate them. You have to soak pinto beans too, or at least I do, generally overnight, then cook the chili through the day in a crock-pot.
Soft kidney beans? I don't know, I won't eat them so I never noticed. As for pinto beans they have hard in a bag, and soft in a can, and ground into paste for "refried" beans. It all depends on what type of food you are making.
Incorrect. Truth is a myth created by belief. A phantom concept that doesn't exist without being perceived.
On a different note I always have liked Land Rovers so it is a shame they break down so much. Back before the economy took a dump in the Bush years the Chinese company which bought MG was saying they were going to bring MG back to the US. After the recession hit they changed their minds though and that is a shame because I would have bought one.
Don't like chili with or without beans - and with kidney beans is how my ad always made chili - his family is from West Virginia. Don't judge. As far as cars are concerned, I'm thinking of getting one of these ...
The Rogue is definitely one of the better looking small SUVs on the market right now though I don't know how capable it would actually be off road. Then again most of the folks who own it probably don't take it off road.
Yeah, when I was growing up my dad always had at least o e but sometimes up to three British roadsters as his hobby cars. They were bought used and normally in various states of disrepair/decomposition. When things were running right they were beautiful but they seldom stayed that way for long. Hell, even when you put a brand new convertable top on some of them the damn tops would leak right out of the box. They just weren't engineered right. That's why so many of the old guys who liked British roadsters from the 60's through 80's were so excited when Mazda came out with their own roadster in 1989. They were like "hey, the Japanese are making the type of car I like so maybe it won't break down every 5k like the British ones do!"
Is it? Well, at least I got the brand right. I can't say I have ever even set foot in a Nissan dealership. I kind of wonder where the company went wrong because they were good sellers in the 70's and 80's but sales didn't seem to do so well after that.
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Nissan_Juke/ "The juke is rated 14th out of 22 compact SUVs." Hmm, I had never even heard of the Juke.
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Honda_CR-V/ The Honda CRV is rated number one in the compact SUV segment but I think it looks bland and rather frumpy. At least Nissan is trying to make their offering stand out from the crowd.
Compact SUVs....I kinda fail to see the point of 'em. Take MINI's Paceman and Countryman models which are the two most expensive models and which are still barely the same size as a compact to mid size sedan. Most aggrevating, like it's three door hardtop cousins, you still have to choose between passangers and luggage.
Nice if you don't like having adults in the back seat. Even the front is a bit small for tall or large people. Plus the juke is so small it is easily lost behind sedans. Still it fits into almost any space.
