i actually wish this was a movie

After he pulled out a gun, I laghed through the whole thing. Sadime is is sadime does.

That was actually rather pathetic. I've seen preteens do better.

Let us commence a journey into the much travelled topic of killing a man. The constantly changing fashionable take on killing a man demonstrates the depth of the subject. While it has been acknowledged that it has an important part to play in the development of man, spasmodically it returns to create a new passion amongst those who study its history. The juxtapositioning of killing a man with fundamental economic, social and political strategic conflict draws criticism from socialists, many of whom fail to comprehend the full scope of killing a man. At the heart of the subject are a number of key factors. I plan to examine each of these factors in detail and and asses their importance.

Social Factors

Society begins and ends with killing a man. When blues legend 'Bare Foot D' remarked 'awooooh eeee only my dawg understands me' [1] he was clearly refering to the impact of killing a man on today's society. No symbol is more potent than killing a man in society today. It smells of success.

When one is faced with people of today a central theme emerges - killing a man is either adored or despised, it leaves no one undecided. Just as a dog will return to its own sick, society will return to killing a man, again and again.

Economic Factors

The dictionary defines economics as 'the social science concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services'. We will begin by looking at the Maiden-Tuesday-Lending model of economics.
Annual
Military
Budget

killing a man

Clearly the graphs demonstrates a strong correlation. Why is this? Clearly the annual military budget will eventually break free from the powerful influence of killing a man, but not before we see a standardised commercial policy for all. A sharp down turn in middle class investment may lead to changes in the market.

Political Factors

Much of the writings of historians display the conquests of the most powerful nations over less powerful ones. Comparing the ideals of the young with the reality felt by their elders is like contrasting the two sides of killing a man.

Take a moment to consider the words of one of the great political analysts Esperanza Tuigamala 'People in glass houses shouldn't through parties.' [2] This quotation leads me to suspect that he was not unaccustomed to killing a man. It speaks volumes. Perhaps the word which sums up the importance of killing a man to politics is 'participation'.
Why did killing a man cross the road? - To get to the other side! Just my little joke, but lets hope that killing a man doesn't inspire similar hilarity in the next elections.