Added: 5 years ago
From: abelraisescain
Views: 38,038
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (41)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • We lost another one! Man down!

  • 0:05 "I know i felt that way many.....Oh SHIT ! THAT'S NOT WHAT I FELT!!

  • That was just hilarious,

  • lol... now I really want to go on Jeremy Kyle with a load of friends and do this... knowing me though, I would end up pissing myself laughing.

  • Bs lol combination of lights. Is it like 40 degrees in there? Just underfed actors.

  • The work of Alan Abel. Hired actors put a dent on a live show. Alan is the best at fooling media and its viewers...

  • WE ALL GONE DIE SUM DAY

  • The irony of this is that one of the reasons Phil ceased doing his original show was because talkshows were turning to silly, yellow journalism. In the grand scheme of things, his show wasn't that sensational, but rather was informative, topical, and open.

  • and he have lost another one ROTFL

  • LMAO thats awesome

  • Alan Abel rocks!

  • I invite everyone to attend TV shows and do things like that. Let's go!

  • Yeah, somebody should pee all over the presentator's suit and say he's incontinent ^_^

  • LOL @ "We've lost another one".

  • Lololol yes @ We lost another one! Scraxxxpiiiiii..... xDDDD

  • lighten up.

  • dude thats why alan abel is hardcore

  • @Azooka1234 sounds like you need a sense of humor. 

  • Alan Abel wanted to ""Fight Against Idiotic Neurotic Television" by making it more idiotic and neurotic? What a joke.

  • Frankly, it pales in comparison to some of the stuff Oprah had on at the time (a woman who claims she saw Elvis at the Burger King?? SERIOUSLY?!), at least Donahue was being topical. He'd always done that sort of thing though, I'm surprised they targeted him as opposed to the more...frivilous fare.

  • Absolutely. Donahue was/is preferable to Oprah any day!  Unfortunately the non-frivolous ones are the exception to the rule these days.

  • I agree -- this makes television even more idiotic and neurotic -- and also at a time when we were a bit naive about our own safety here in the USA. Pull a stunt like this nowadays and the Department of Homeland Security would lock you up in an instant!

  • You agree with the measures we've put in place to extend security? You think the liberty we've lost is a justifiable sacrifice to that end? Nothing like this should even raise a federal eyebrow!

  • You would agree with the measures as well, especially if it help to prevent a box-cutter wielding idiot from slashing your throat and then having you incinerated in a fireball.

  • No I wouldn't, because it's not so cut and dry. Those men do indeed wish to terrorize our society, so we rightfully call them "terrorists." However, there are ones just as corrupt in the ranks of government, and the private industry that has its hands up the ass and deep in the pockets of many politicians (giving them power over and above the law at times). I'm not so naive that I do not realize how much they benefit from these laws, to build a society that they have had long in the planning.

  • ...and you don't need the measures of the PATRIOT ACT to prevent box-cutter-wielding terrorists from hijacking planes. What you need is a combination of a domestic and foreign policy that not substantiate nor invite such cowardly acts, and a vigilant and free society that will exercise authority over their lives (ie: responsible and qualified citizens carrying concealed weapons on those planes would have made ANY terrorist think twice before doing what they did). The PATRIOT ACT does neither!!

  • But I can only begin to explain my point in the 500-character comments that YouTube allows. There is much that it would take reading a book to understand, otherwise one may not be so quickly convinced of the common sense that supports these assertions. I can tell you this, though... Ron Paul would bring us a step closer to the ideal system: A foreign policy of freedom, with peace, commerce and honest friendship among nations, and a free and open society with a strong domestic backbone.

  • that was jack cafferty from the situation room on cnn

  • That's not the Situation Room. That's Live at Five on WNBC-TV in New York. Cafferty co-hosted it with Sue Simmons in the mid-80s.

  • The very same WNBC-TV/Channel 4 at which Donahue's show was produced when this happened. It was only a couple of weeks after Phil moved the show from Chicago. I was at home on a school vacation and I remember watching this on Ch. 4 live. It was the most stunned watching a live broadcast until a year and three quarters later when the Mets beat the Red Sox in Game 6 of the World Series. (During the Chicago days, Ch. 4 would usually get his show on tape.)

  • *THUD* "We've lost another one", priceless :)

  • The second best talk show of all time, after Oprah!

  • "we've lost another one!" hahahah awesome

  • This is TOOOOOO funny!Douche bag donahue gets PUNKED.I love it.

  • they should have picked a more deserving target, like Pouvich or Springer.

  • I agree

  • Agreed. Even Geraldo was a more deserving target. Donahue wasn't that bad. Able was the douche bag here.

  • hey douche bag, this was before Pouvich, Springer, and even Geraldo had their own talkshows. Donahue was just starting the trend of bad daytime talkshows that those guys ripped off. He got what he deserved. Abel was ahead of his time

  • That is so mean.  But it's funny, so I'll let it slide.....this time!

  • Genius.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more