If I saw someone calling the Tea Party tea baggers my reaction to their stance would be exactly the same.

Just because I don't agree with everything the Tea Party pushes for doesn't mean I feel the need to insult them, nor to trivialize them or dismiss them.

If you want to debate points like a grownup, you (and everyone else, not just you) can start by not calling people names or attempting to sway opinion through mockery.

But sure, let's examine this. You say, it's easier to get offended than to address the points you made. However, I don't see how the points you made have anything to do with what I was saying. You contend that the Tea Party is more organized than the Occupy movement ... which I also said in my original post, so I guess we agree there. This is why in my parody post I portrayed you as arguing with people even when they essentially agree with you.

You go on to say that the Tea Party is essentially civilized and following the rules in their protestations, while saying that the Occupy movement is essentially rowdy and lawbreaking. Let's go with that, then. I have no interest in trying to track down sources to argue against that, because you'd just dismiss anything even if I could find it (don't say you wouldn't; you always do). It seems to me that the Tea Party was rowdier in its very early days as well, but probably not as rowdy as the Occupy movement is right now, it's true. But I honestly don't know what I would find if I went looking, whether I would find more evidence to vindicate your opinion or more evidence to doubt your opinion. I don't know, let's accept what you've said and go from there.

My question is, does that point matter at all to what I said in my original post? What I said was that quite clearly people are upset, whether they're left-leaning or right-leaning. Both sides think that things aren't being done right. They have different ideas as to what the problems are and what the solutions are, but on a fundamental level what it comes down to is that People Aren't Happy. Not all the people, but enough for two very visible movements to have sprung up.

So, what does it matter if one of the movements is working within the system and one of the movements is resisting the system? I'm not here to argue with you the merits of each group's beliefs. I haven't even stated what I feel about the Occupy movement's beliefs. It doesn't matter, it's outside what we're talking about, and chances are pretty good we'd just disagree anyway. I have no interest in having an ideological pissing match with you or anyone else.

But seriously, what does it matter if the two groups are doing things differently?

Speaking on a purely logical level, does the manner in which a person goes about accomplishing a task affect the validity of the task they are trying to accomplish?

I want you to be honest in answering that. Don't think about it from the Occupy perspective or the Tea Party perspective. Think broadly, think big picture, think in general, think about it for something you have no opinion on. If the Tea Party was being rowdy (this is hypothetical), would that, in your mind, invalidate their beliefs? If the Occupy movement was being 100 percent peaceful and working within the system, would that, in your mind, make their beliefs good?

I'm pretty sure the answer to both those questions is no. The way in which a group goes about accomplishing something is entirely unrelated to the rightness or wrongness of their goals. You could argue that the way they try to accomplish something speaks to their moral character or something like that, but that still has nothing to do with the validity of their goals. If Adolf Hitler started a vaccination program to cure a horrible disease, and he forced every German citizen to get it so that his population would be healthy and he would have more access to soldiers and workers, that wouldn't make vaccinations to cure horrible diseases wrong. And if Ghandi kicked a puppy because it was distracting him from his hunger strike that would eventually go on to help create an independent India, that wouldn't make puppy kicking right.

Those are ridiculous examples, but what I'm trying to say is that methodology and goals are two separate things. You can disagree with the Occupy movement's methodology and that's fine, and you can disagree with their goals and that's also fine, but you can't say that their goals are invalid because of their methodology.

So that brings us back to the original question. What does it matter that the two groups went about things in different ways? If it doesn't matter, why are you trying to argue with me?

Do you have any thoughts on what I actually said in my original post? I didn't express any opinion as to the validity of either movement's goals. I didn't say anthing about which is right and which is wrong. I said that both movements reflect a general unhappiness with the status quo, even though they have different solutions. I said that neither movement should be dismissed out of hand. Do you disagree with that?

If not, then again, why are you trying to argue with me? Do you just like to argue?

It's possible that you do disagree with the last bit, that neither movement should be dismissed out of hand. Do you think that the Tea Party should be taken seriously but the Occupy movement should be dismissed as irrelevent? And your argument for why this should be done is because of their methods?

If your argument is that the Occupy movement should be dismissed because of their ideology, then I'm sorry but my quotation of yours about shallow understanding of people who think differently absolutely applies. Clearly the people involved in this movement think differently than you. Does that automatically make them wrong?

If you think they're wrong because of some intrinsic flaw in their thinking (please don't go into detail on all the reasons you think they're wrong; it really doesn't matter to what I'm saying, even though I'm willing to bet you'll think it does), then that's fine, but why does that mean they should be mocked and dismissed? There are people who can detail all the reasons why they think certain Tea Party positions are wrong as well, but that doesn't mean they should be mocked or dismissed either.

What it comes down to is that I really don't understand what you think we're arguing or why you felt the need to respond to my post with dismissal and mockery of the Occupy movement. Regardless of a person's position, those political mockery names, whether they be Flea Party or Tea Baggers or Faux News or hell, let's call CNN the Communist News Network just to balance it out — all of those things are childish, and you (and everyone, on both sides) could make any actual points you have a lot better without them.

Now stop arguing with me. :p

(All I wanted to do in this post was say that both sides are finding it real easy to point to each other as the enemy when it seems to me that the real enemy is whatever is causing so many people to be upset about the status quo in the first place. Whether you lean right or left, just because someone is trying to apply a completely different solution to a problem than you doesn't mean they aren't trying to solve the exact same issue, and working together would have a better chance at producing lasting results, even though "working together" seems to be some sort of blasphemy in American politics these days.)

Dammit, this is really long. It feels like a Joel post. Do you just bring that out in people? Whether you reply or not, I think I've said all I want to in this thread. My position is that anyone on EITHER side who dismisses the idea that the other side has legitimate issues is being short sighted and tunnel-visioned.