Bobby is steadfast in his Belief that free gimmes will solve the poverty problem.
Bob is either being disingenuous, or he's retarded, and I'm not sure which is worse.
Yes, idiot, bandaids are for wounds, but they're not for
every wound. If someone's been in a serious accident that took out a massive chunk of flesh, you wouldn't just slap a bandaid over it and call it a day, you'd utilize more suitable treatments.
The whole point of calling something a "bandaid solution" is to imply that what you're doing is either inadequate for the problem or not even addressing the problem correctly, which is what this person is doing when they say that gibs don't actually do anything to solve the situation poor people are in that would make them need them. God, you're such a retard.
What is up with that guy in the second panel? Some unholy combination of a chink and a nigger- a chigger, if you will?
It's an edited Stonetoss comic, the original is here:

As you can see, originally the middle panel was a caricature of the sort of guy that lefties absolutely loathe: white, Christian, and Southern, complete with buck teeth. Ironically, by recoloring him as a black guy, they actually made themselves look tremendously racist, practically straight out of the Jim Crow era.

Many men -- such as Tony and Bobby -- are dumber than most women. This is Biology.
The differences between the sexes have been well known for a long time: statistically, men have more representation on the extremes, while women cluster around the middle. This does not mean that all men are smarter than women, it means that you'll find more men than women at both ends of the scale. There are more male geniuses than female geniuses, but there are also more male retards than female retards. Thus, it makes sense to keep biological men out of women's chess because those who would be competing there would likely have an advantage.
Tony, being a man, definitely illustrates this concept. Which end of the scale he is on is left as an exercise to the reader.
Justice and benevolence triumphs over the evil Rat, which makes Bobby and his peers very, very mad.

Contrary to what Mac (who stands with the WGA) says, someone, anyone, paying back crowdfunders is newsworthy in and of itself, and
Angel Studios actually paid a 20% dividend on top of what crowdfunders have given them. How much had The Rat paid you Bobby?
The movie was made years ago but shelved by the Rat, then it finally found a distributor and a release date. These plans were assuredly set in motion long before the writers started throwing their hissy fit, yet these morons are implying that the only reason it's out is because all the "talented" people aren't working.
And meanwhile, the movie's doing so well that they can afford to pay back everyone who crowdfunded its release, and then some. I agree, when was the last time you heard of
anyone paying back a crowdfund?

I too am surprised that the latest
MI didn't turn a huge profit like
Top Gun Maverick did.
This may be baseless speculation on my part, but I wonder if the "Part One" in the title scared off some people. Being told ahead of time that they'll have to wait a year or two for the conclusion may have led people who otherwise would have gone to say "eh, I'll just wait." I thought it was pretty fun, but I don't know why they couldn't just release two movies with different titles since it's all one long-running series.
AI art is STEALING reeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

Figuring out how people make bread and design a machine to automate the process is not "stealing bread", dumbass.
The first tweet's argument has been the same I've made; getting mad about AI "stealing" art is asinine when it's just doing the same thing that people do, but faster. You can argue about whether AI art has soul or creativity or whatever, but I think that's beside the point. It's a tool that people are using to express their own creative urges, allowing them to get ideas out of their head for the first time, and I think that should be commended.
As to the second, I don't think an aesthetic criticism is really the point here. The point is more to illustrate how far the tech has already come. Yeah, it's not perfect, and if you pull out a frame here and there it'll look goofy, but that's because they're using these tools in a way they're not completely designed for (Stable Diffusion has an issue with consistency, which makes animation created with it look wobbly and weird). Give it time, and people will manage to make it look better and better.
Ironically, none of Bob's work will ever end up in an AI's dataset, because none of it is worth using.