Twinkies are back!!!

  • Thread starter FoolKiller
  • 172 comments
  • 10,624 views
It's a little strange that there is so much of a big deal being made about Twinkies. I have them probably once a year. :lol:
Hostess makes better food than the Twinkie, not sure why everyone is so focused on that.
Twinkies were an iconic product, maintained a cult following, and were a target for the anti-junk food crowd before gamers turned Cheetos into the new target.

DK
I'd be more horrified if Mars went out of business, I love Snickers.
Won't happen. They are widely branched out, even making coffee and tea.
Www.myflavia.com is the coffee maker we have. We were contemplating buying one as a gift but couldn't find our model and called to see if they still made it. Our call was answered by Mars customer support. Hostess had no clue how to branch out.
 
I like them, you know? But face it, they aren't that good, man.

I heard this on Saturday, and my first thought was how another childhood icon will disappear; but then I realized I probably haven't eaten one in well over a decade...
 
Keef is right. There are plenty of people who believes that Twinkies last for years.

I keep assortment of snacks at work? I went through boxes of Zingers, Twinkies, etc., one time. Twinkies actually had very short shelf-life. I think the "sell by" date was only something like 3 weeks away?

I got it from a busy grocery chain, so I know it didn't sit there a long time, or anything like that.

P.S. I can't remember where I heard it, but I heard somebody say that he visited Hostess outlet or a store? A fight damnnear broke out over a bag of something.

I don't get it man. If people liked them so much, why was the business so slow for Hostess? I think these people are just bored, as I rarely see anybody eating Hostess snacks anymore.
I heard this on Saturday, and my first thought was how another childhood icon will disappear; but then I realized I probably haven't eaten one in well over a decade...
Chocolate creme Twinkies was the last I tried, I thought they were OK? Zinger stuff was OK, if they didn't put brick of frosting as the topping(I think there was some without frosting).
 
Some people are just plain retarded ..... $1000.00 O.B.O for a box (10) Twinkies.

Who (in their right mind) would purchase this.

LINK
 
Chocolate creme Twinkies was the last I tried, I thought they were OK? Zinger stuff was OK, if they didn't put brick of frosting as the topping(I think there was some without frosting).
I didn't know chocolate creme Twinkies even existed until a couple days ago when I saw a pic on the web.

As far as Hostess products go, I liked Ding Dongs when I was younger, but that was about it. Never was a fan of Zingers or Twinkies.
 
I bought just one box, but if I see it again, I don't mind adding it to my stash at work. :D It's a wonder how I don't weigh 300 lbs.
Hostess are going back into negotiations, Twinkies may survive still.
Unions. :crazy:
 
Also, slightly off-topic (sorry) but is it just me, or do all the names of the Hostess products seem to have been thought of by 3 year olds?
 
NissanSkylineN1
Apparently twinkies are still going to be available in canada.

Hostess' Canadian division is owned by Vachon (jos louis, passion flakie, etc).
 
Some people are just plain retarded ..... $1000.00 O.B.O for a box (10) Twinkies.

Who (in their right mind) would purchase this.

LINK

There are some being sold for millions of dollars. I know most of the ridiculously priced ones are supposed to go to charity, but holy 🤬! :crazy::eek:
 
Millions for Twinkies !?!?!? Insane, just insane.

There is a ray of hope for Hostess Brands though. The owner of Pabst Blue Ribbon may buy them. A beer brewing company saving Twinkies ..... :lol:

article

One never knows.
 
I'm going to laugh when some rich sugar addict saves Hostess and I see the look on the faces of everybody who's buying Twinkies for millions.
 
Just because someone lists it for that much doesn't mean someone will buy it at that price.

I know. I'm saying that people are buying them for these prices for charity, I'm not saying that they're simply being listed for these prices.

Despite this fact, you all seem to be missing the point. If anybody saves Hostess, then all these people paying large sums of money for these last Twinkies will simply be wasting their money.

And it seems almost inevitable that some type of solution will come to save Hostess.

Don't be so picky, and try to see the whole point of my posts please.
 
I know. I'm saying that people are buying them for these prices for charity, I'm not saying that they're simply being listed for these prices.

I have not found a single thing saying any of those listed for high amounts have actually sold at that(I have looked). Just plenty of links saying they are listed at that, I could go on right now and list a grain of rice at $4,000,000 and it would mean nothing.

That being said, they are selling for $26/box which is still insane.
 
Last edited:
I have not found a single thing saying any of those listed for high amounts have actually sold at that(I have looked). Just plenty of links saying they are listed at that, I could go on right now and list a grain of rice at $4,000,000 and it would mean nothing.

That being said, they are selling for $26/box which is still insane.

Okay, I'm sorry. While they might not be selling at those millions prices, the fact is that they are still selling at insane amounts, even though Hostess will probably find a way to stay in business.
 
even though Hostess will probably find a way to stay in business.

They will still sell for high amounts for a little bit as it would probably take them at least a month to get shelves cross-country full again after the deal.
 
Sad day for their families? I think it's a sad day for the tax payers, because guess what? They will be looking for the tax payers to support their moronic union tactics.

We already suspected the Union for the bankruptcy, but you know it got unbelievably dumb when the Teamster is the good guy & voice of reason in the story. Sounds like it got really bad(pay cuts, healthcare cuts, etc.), but instead of trying to switch jobs, figure out a Plan B, and that company is nearly going under, they decided to demand Hostess make capital appear out of thin air. Nicely played......

If you jump off the bridge, should the tax payers have to pay to fix your legs? In this country, I suppose we do.
 
Sad day for their families? I think it's a sad day for the tax payers, because guess what? They will be looking for the tax payers to support their moronic union tactics.

We already suspected the Union for the bankruptcy, but you know it got unbelievably dumb when the Teamster is the good guy & voice of reason in the story. Sounds like it got really bad(pay cuts, healthcare cuts, etc.), but instead of trying to switch jobs, figure out a Plan B, and that company is nearly going under, they decided to demand Hostess make capital appear out of thin air. Nicely played......

If you jump off the bridge, should the tax payers have to pay to fix your legs? In this country, I suppose we do.

Well, to be fair on the Union, the workers did accept a 22% pay cut, aswell as cuts to benefits (Healthcare etc.) when the company last went broke 5 years ago. This time they were asking for even more pay cuts, whilst those at the top were getting pay and bonus increases. This was despite the failure to revive the company from the previous bankruptcy (Despite big concessions from the union), or recognise that they were in a declining market and they should change their product lines to match consumer needs.

I can't blame the Executives, the company was crashing and burning, they didn't have the capital to reverse the declining growth of the company. But to expect the workers/union to take all the flak for the insolvency of the company is complete rubbish.

I know if I had to take a 20% pay cut and the top managers were taking increases, i'd be pretty uncooperative too. It doesn't matter if the bonuses/pay increases were only a drop in the ocean compared to the debt the company has, it's the principle of it; it's blatantly unfair.
 
Back