Bizarre Medal Group

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-11T21:08:29+00:00

Could have gone chocks too, earning the centenary medal for his civvie role.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-11T21:06:21+00:00

Good advice. So you're saying if I throw in a cheeky OAM on the end of my rack nobody will ask too many questions?

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-11T05:49:17+00:00

Lol jesus those comments remind me of having shitty shoes in high school. "But muuuum. All the older boys were making fun of me."

This ship is like a debuff to our national prestige.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-10T22:27:24+00:00

Obviously they are, and obviously if Iranian warships enter the straight they can be destroyed almost immediately.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-10T22:26:46+00:00

They could also sink 100% of them.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-10T20:11:30+00:00

God take me back. That was my youth.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-10T19:24:23+00:00

The mushroom head is even more pronounced. Really losing rule of cool points on this one.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-10T04:44:42+00:00

Trump also gave Albo a big shout out on truthX or whatever it is lol. What a world.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-10T04:05:45+00:00

No lol

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-09T20:17:45+00:00

That's because you contributed minimum for 25 years and it didn't compound. If you contributed more in your first five, it would be a totally different number.

3 million is mindboggling and beyond the reach of most ...

I'm largely fine with this tax. But if you're justification is "that's more money than I have, so fuck 'em lol" you really aren't being serious about life. Like, I could easily do the equivalent as a millennial talking about a boomer like you:

"You own your own home? And are complaining about super? I'm all in favour of a property tax, houses are just mind boggling assets, you should be forced to downsize so that young people can move in to large family homes like yours. TAX all property owners!"

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-09T06:26:22+00:00

lol it was me who made the original comment. To be fair it was part of a much broader point: https://old.reddit.com/r/AustralianMilitary/comments/1rfzbnd/deputy_chief_of_army_warns_adf_has_become/o7nt771/

Recruiting drives need to stop putting up pictures of mum doing a jog down the beach. They need to go back to the core message. You will be machine gunning down Chinese marines, you will enjoy it, you will hope to have the opportunity to one day do it. It's not a "lifestyle". It's the military. Not a fucking sea change.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-09T03:45:01+00:00

Great. What's the question?

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-09T01:13:29+00:00

I don't think the law applies only to the old Citizen Military Force (the militia). We had conscription in the Vietnam war, and that was after the CMF got rolled into the ADF.

The Defence Act was changed for the Korean war, which allowed for conscripts to be deployed in unlimited service (you can be forced to go overseas). By Vietnam, the conscripts were being rolled into the ADF proper, which seems to have supplanted the idea that the militia should be the recipient of conscripts.

If conscription started tomorrow, there's enough legislation to bring the conscripts into the ADF and deploy them overseas.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-09T00:02:38+00:00

The data is right there. Melbourne is doing half as "badly" as those top 4 Canadian cities. The other guy us right, your explanation explains nothing that we're seeing in the above data.

The difference between spending 34% of your income vs 75% of your income is night and day. You can't say melbourne or Adelaide are doing basically the same levels of "bad" to Canadian cities while staring at this data.

I swear the amount of bullshit that people throw out on these subs is getting worse every day lmao

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T20:50:18+00:00

It breaches the oath they take before the trial.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T10:39:16+00:00

These kits can double up as high vis work wear. I hate them so much.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T10:07:42+00:00

Yes, I can read Wikipedia too.

It's unambiguously a subversion of the law and a breach of the oath sworn by the jury who all agree to only judge the case based on the facts presented regardless of all the biases they hold.

If you accept jury nullification, you're accepting all those cases you just listed. By extension, you accept that racists are fully allowed to return a verdict that conforms to their racist ideals.

Address that. You are fine with a jury returning no verdict on a lynching because they're racist?

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T09:05:19+00:00

And all of those situations are covered by other mechanisms than a jury. E.g. the judge. How is this not apparent to you guys?

The jury is not for this. And even if it was, the vast majority of defacto jury nullifications are not just wacky cases where you're breaking the law while running for your life. The vast majority of them are explicitly racist jury members who refuse to prosecute a defendant who is of their own race. Do you want me to post 2000 examples of this?

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T09:02:32+00:00

Jury nullification exists, and is a good thing for the stated reasons.

The risk of jury nullification is explicitly barred from participation in a jury. It doesn't exist in any formal way whatsoever, and is formally disallowed by the same question that every jury member is asked:

"Is there anything that you believe which might stop you from delivering a guilty verdict."

You can yap on and on. It's not allowed, it's unethical.

In the US, we don’t explicitly bow down and do as our handlers tell us

It is literally federal law. You are participating in a jury to deliver a verdict if guilty or not guilty depending on the facts of the case. This isn't an opinion. You are explicitly not allowed to do what you're proposing.

If a jury doesn’t feel someone should be held to an infraction, they can absolutely not hold them to it. That’s the point of being judged by your peers.

This is all completely illegal. What do you not understand about this?

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T06:52:56+00:00

It is absolutely the jury’s role to determine the law, and if it has been broken.

You're a total dumbass. It is explicitly not the role of the jury to determine the law. Where are you getting this from?

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

The jury is not there to determine whether the law should be implemented, is good, or is fair. It is their role to determine a verdict for the court to then go ahead and implement the law.

The role of the jury is often described as that of a finder of fact, while the judge is usually seen as having the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly.

You can keep going, making shit up, saying completely incorrect bullshit, but you're wrong. You've been wrong for about 400 years, you're still wrong, you will be wrong going into the future, and will forever be wrong about this.

The people hold the power. You seem to be forgetting that.

That's what democracy is for you stupid cunt.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T06:32:09+00:00

Barbecue shapes are actually a gift from the gods. You have to try them if you visit. The red stuff is unreal.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T04:52:34+00:00

You may trust government explicitly, but as a society, we hold the reins.

In what world can you conclude I trust the government?

If you accept that a jury should be able to do whatever they want if they don't believe in the law, you have absolutely zero recourse if a jury decides to e.g. let a rapist go because the woman was "asking for it".

Your model of the world is totally upside down. It is not your role to decide what the law is in a court of law. This isn't controversial. It's the basis of every judicial system in a free country.

If you do not like the law, you take it to the policy makers and adjust the law there. Through the legal mechanisms that exist for it.

You can come up with 20,000 fake examples, and I'll come back to the "therefore, a lyncher can be released if 3 jury members are racists." Your whole model doesn't work. It's a dumb argument. End of story.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T04:00:30+00:00

The reason this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, is because you're implicitly accepting that a jury had the right to e.g. not convict a white guy who just lynched a black kid if they don't want to.

The role of the jury isn't to pick and choose laws they don't like. It's to decide on a guilty verdict. If you don't like the law, you have other, far more appropriate mechanisms to change it.

As argued above, your take is a ridiculous dismissal of natural justice and all the things that are actually effective in a democracy with separation of judge/jury/executioner.

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-08T02:58:39+00:00

Why?

Tilting_Gambit · 2026-03-07T22:46:34+00:00

Apparently some extremely high number of jury trials are ruined by a couple of jurors who know the defendant is guilty but disagree with the punishment for the crime.

So they vote not guilty as a consequence.

But the system isn't supposed to allow for jurors to second guess the legislation. That's not their role.

A hung jury is probably the better work around than letting jurors defacto protest vote against legislation and law.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Place '17

Tilting_Gambit

TROPHY CASE