Your probably sitting back in your chair, drinking a pop or snacking on food.
But as you speak other kids our age are working their butts off trying to make enough money to pay for food for their families. They probbably never even heard of the internet. But the kids in the Mid East have it better than kids in India. If you make it through childhood you have to fight your way into the overcrowded high schools and few colleges.
Even our small humanitarian aide groups cant make a very big impact.
We need somebody in the high positions to help make a big move.
What if the world was really governed by a high senate, would that help, or just put the world under one tyrant?

Both would fail miserably. Regions need to decide what is best for themselves more often than not (so long as it doesn't hurt innocent people or threaten the world in some way), otherwise they become overregulated and aren't as successful as they could be. Complete Centralization of power just doesn't work, under any kind of government. The USA has been successful because it's managed to allow locals to control and support their own communities, without seriously harming the rest of society. The Roman Empire, USSR and other nations/empires however have all tried the opposite, controlling large areas without allowing regional differences or decentralization of power, and have all failed miserably as a result.

One giant tyrant. I'm against that, unless I'm the tyrant.

As cliched as it sounds, and as much as I'd like to believe that if everyone in the world had my views we wouldn't have any problems, the world...needs diversity, of culture and opinion. The world would a) be very boring and b) not really work, at all, if we were all under one leader. To be under one leader we'd all have to be the same, otherwise people would break away. The world would be a very scary place under one leader, even if he/she was a good, kind leader.

i completely disagree with the world having only one leader.. it never works as power gets into anyones head and then the world will have to create more americas to destroy dictators.. think of it, america has always tried to put an end to dictatorship wether its about saddam or uniting to dethrone hitler..
the local issues are best left to a local native, cause people are bought up to think according to the geography of their place and not the geography half way around the world..
as for kids our age working their butts off, its really ironic,
india is a perfect example of horrible conditons of living for many unlucky teens, but the problem is very deeply rooted , so putting a fullstop to it is next to impossible...even getting the number of child labourers down is very very difficult given the present state of affairs.....

but doesnt absolute power corrupt? even the best cant do that
you need a world senate with the whole world in it and one army

Well, if we started basing political theory on the Bible, then the world's end would come within a few years. The Bible, if you hadn't noticed, is not the most non-violent book in the world.

I fully support the world under one rule. I believe strongly in: One people, one world, one leader. This is quite cohesive with Fuhrerprinzip, or the Leadership Principle, made famous by Hitler and the Nazis. However, I believe in one people as the entire human race, not who Hitler mistakenly called "Aryans". Only when one capable leader rules with unquestioned authority can peace truly come about.

huh? I guess if you mean that I think the raputure and the tribulation is coming soon, I say yes.

are you saying that the appacolypse is coming soon, or merely fooling around with the catechismic theory?

I'm not sure he'll do much help though, in the long run.

Umm, it would put the world under one big tyrant. Anyways, it will happen one day, because the Bible says that there will be a world-wide ruler (the antichrist) during the Tribulation.