Stetchman

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

I wish the media would drop harping on this point, its like this is the first or last time a government will change its mind.

1. Howard 1995: “There’s no way a GST will ever be part of our policy. Never ever.”
→ Introduced 10% GST in 2000.
2. Abbott 2013: “No cuts to education, health, pensions, ABC/SBS or change to GST.”
→ 2014 Budget delivered cuts to ABC/SBS, big uni fee hikes, health savings & more.
3. Abbott super promise: “No unexpected adverse changes to super.”
→ Delayed compulsory super increases.

I could give you many more but hopefully you get the point.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@carlzjsoda Hey im not into this mass moral outrage. But please don't try to paint Gina as being altruistic. These people clearly take more than they give, they are the result of a market which rewards greed.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

Emotional street debate is easy when you're not the one whose body is being used for 9 months after rape.
Baby's 'right to life' doesn't override the woman's right to her own body.
If you're truly pro-life, show the same energy for the millions of kids already born dealing with poverty, abuse, and shit healthcare every day. Otherwise it's just pro-birth.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@Timmehhhh7 @DrewPavlou Yes such a good point, its pointless.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@Ve1locatus @DrewPavlou As Jordes stated in the video (7:50) high migration was started by the Howard government with the privitisation of the tertiary education system. Decrease innovation you have to increase consumption, and that is how our economy has survived ever since.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

Yes ask some real questions like why did one nation vote "No" to the following policies
- Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025
- Fee-Free Tafe is here to stay with Labor
- Same Job, Same Pay
- Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025.

All of these policies would reduce our need on immigration and/or strengthen local talent.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

I am no fan of Albanese especially after the hate speech laws, but this has to be the best thing he has done for young Australians but also our nation. If you have a better plan that removes the incentives for creating wealth from residential realestate and also create opportunities for investment in future industries then im all ears, let me hear it!

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@XFreeze All Tesla owners can now give themselves a quiet pat on the shoulder.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@Mericamemed Reminds me of the saying "give a man a fish....."

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@Gary122474 @BigPopz72 @sunandsand59 Look up your claims before making them. 1st degree murder "The offender had the conscious purpose to cause death.". You just sound like your waffling on.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

**Australia's heavy reliance on residential real estate as a primary form of investment and wealth storage poses significant long-term risks to sustainable economic growth.** With household debt hovering around 110-120% of GDP—one of the highest levels globally—and property accounting for roughly two-thirds of total household wealth, the economy is highly exposed to housing market fluctuations. This concentration crowds out more productive investments in infrastructure, R&D, manufacturing, and business expansion that drive productivity and innovation. Tax incentives like negative gearing further channel capital into existing housing stock rather than new productive capacity, contributing to high prices, affordability barriers for younger generations, and slower overall growth.

**A sharp correction in property values—triggered by higher interest rates, reduced migration, or global shocks—could cascade through the financial system, given banks' heavy exposure to mortgages and households' leveraged balance sheets.** This setup amplifies financial instability risks while exacerbating intergenerational inequality, as wealth becomes increasingly tied to property ownership rather than broad-based economic participation. While housing provides essential services and short-term stimulus, over-dependence on it mirrors cautionary tales like China's property woes and limits Australia's ability to build a more resilient, diversified economy. Policy shifts toward easing supply constraints and rebalancing incentives could help mitigate these vulnerabilities.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@TheNorfolkLion Unfortunately the policeman is right. Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to be charged with a crime. They would need other types of evidence before charges were made.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

Take this as a warning not to buy these vehicles.
https://t.co/pgHwoor5wd

[ETP Engine Parts @ETPonline]

ETP's Assembled Cylinder Head Kit suits 3.2L Diesel P5-AT (Puma Duratorq 32) in Mazda BT-50, Ford Ranger PX - Includes ETP Ultimate VRS and Head Bolts

Assembled here in Campbellfield Victoria - Pickup available 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday. Ph: 03 9357 0854

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@huskirl Bro this is getting so old, its just annoying. Your like my kids with party blowouts.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@KiKO_9F @_shez_pretty In a perfect world that goes both ways.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

Her line does not actually put him in his place. Initially, Laura wants to maintain her cynical, distant persona. But because his words ring so entirely true, she abandons her rehearsed, aloof response. By saying "Sorry. Wrong line," she is essentially saying:"I am dropping my prepared script.""That was the wrong response to give, because your insight actually hit the mark.""I am not going to pretend to be unaffected by what you just said."Instead of giving a standard, biting retort, her admission invites genuine vulnerability, letting them drop their guards and connect on a much deeper level.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

@5149jamesli Is rage baiting how you get your kicks? What a waste.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

This decision doesn't "cause women to lose the battle for justice" it simply applied the Sex Discrimination Act exactly as Parliament wrote it in 2013 when gender identity was added alongside sex. Courts aren't activists here they followed the law. The real issue is that the underlying claims of widespread harm to women rely on statistics that are heavily distorted by fear, confirmation bias, and memory reinterpretation over decades. Lifetime prevalence figures like 22% sound alarming until you remember most incidents are self-reported years later, often low-level (offensive words or staring), and filtered through a societal lens that already treats men with systemic mistrust.

Even the male skew in police recorded sexual offending (93-97%) gets overstated for policy purposes when you factor in court asymmetries. AVOs use a lower proof standard, complainants are given more credibility, and media/government messaging amplifies female fear while downplaying how often innocent men are suspected of wrong doing. Voyeurism cases exist, but they're prosecuted on physical evidence, not feelings and they don't justify treating biology-based boundaries as some sacred wall that collapsed overnight.

If we're honest, this case highlights a legislative mess more than a defeat for women. Single-sex spaces can still be protected with clearer exemptions based on objective biology rather than self-ID. But framing it as women "losing justice" ignores how much the data and legal tilt already favor one side. The battle isn't lost it's just that the evidence for blanket segregation was never as rock-solid as activists claim once you strip away the bias.

[Stetchman @Stetchman]

This decision doesn't "cause women to lose the battle for justice" it simply applied the Sex Discrimination Act exactly as Parliament wrote it in 2013 when gender identity was added alongside sex. Courts aren't activists here they followed the law. The real issue is that the underlying claims of widespread harm to women rely on statistics that are heavily distorted by fear, confirmation bias, and memory reinterpretation over decades. Lifetime prevalence figures like 22% sound alarming until you remember most incidents are self-reported years later, often low-level (offensive words or staring), and filtered through a societal lens that already treats men with systemic mistrust.

Even the male skew in police recorded sexual offending (93-97%) gets overstated for policy purposes when you factor in court asymmetries. AVOs use a lower proof standard, complainants are given more credibility, and media/government messaging amplifies female fear while downplaying how often innocent men are suspected of wrong doing. Voyeurism cases exist, but they're prosecuted on physical evidence, not feelings and they don't justify treating biology-based boundaries as some sacred wall that collapsed overnight.

If we're honest, this case highlights a legislative mess more than a defeat for women. Single-sex spaces can still be protected with clearer exemptions based on objective biology rather than self-ID. But framing it as women "losing justice" ignores how much the data and legal tilt already favor one side. The battle isn't lost it's just that the evidence for blanket segregation was never as rock-solid as activists claim once you strip away the bias.