If by "argument" you mean "one person stubbornly repeating himself in response to every question put to him," then yeah. Melvin for Governor!

3:40 "Not now, no, but how about tomorrow?"

4:50 "I don't know where you're getting your hypotheticals from, sir!"

That's a pretty quick turn-around. It's okay to pass a new law based on a hypothetical situation that can't actually happen now, but propose a hypothetical situation that actually CAN happen now? MADNESS.

We're under attack!
From whom?
Flubbergibberstuttermuck!!!

"Who would be against divorce?"

followed 20 seconds later by

"Traditional marriage is under attack!"

My mother got divorced in the 70s. Its incredible how much she had to endure and I live in a pretty liberal region.

Also, the preview picture is a clear indication of where Anderson stands on the subject.

Like, I lied more convincingly, creatively, and strategically about things that I couldn't possibly get away with lying about when I was six years old.

"debate porn" needs to get linked very badly.

TURN ON THE NEW 3D OPTION

Calling the bill "preemptive" really means "unnecessary" or "uncalled for."

Meanwhile, meaningful immigration reform is indefinitely held back.

Anderson is brilliant in this. Sure it's beating up an idiot, but it's still great theater to watch.

One reason that the man opposes Common Core is that it includes “fuzzy math” that "substitutes letters for numbers in some examples."

You know the absolute worst thing about the politicians who back vile hateful bills like this? They don't even really believe in them. They just pretend they do to appeal to their voting base.

It's bad enough doing something really shitty that hurts a lot of people, but to not even believe in the principles behind it?

The way he can't fathom Christians being discriminatory against a single mother is just like they want religion being taught in schools but WHOOOA that doesn't mean Islam. Why don't you just name the bill "Homosexuals are not people" like you clearly want to, fucking coward.

"Not now...how about tomorrow?"

CNN owes me a new monitor.

I'm seeing a Q-tip version of the comedy and tragedy masks in the preview image.

Or at least Q-tip Abbott and Costello.

As far as rhetoric or propaganda go, CNN may have chosen poorly in choosing a law professor with an effeminate, lispy voice. For this episode, it would tactically make more sense to pick a law expert who is less dissimilar to the senator.

It would have been easier to stake out the center that way, and say that the center sees the law as a problem in that it gives carte blanche to religious objections.