OWS: We want the "rich" (anyone who makes more than we do) to pay more taxes so the government can give us free stuff! Only evil people are rich (except for the rich politicians and other rich political players on *our* side...that's *different*!)! And if we don't get what we demand despite being a voting minority, we'll use violence (*this* is what democracy looks like!!!1!!one) to achieve our goals.
TEA Party: We want government to stop taxing us so much and wasting so much of the taxes they take from us, and to actually start obeying the laws and the limitations on government power that's in the Constitution.
You were saying something about irrationality and destructive rabble-rousing? I must have missed the TEA Party riots, arrests, violence & assaults, drug dealing/use, rapes, property destruction, and the massive clean-ups needed like that which occur/occurred at OWS protests.
Let me teach you a few things you seem to not understand.
The Tea Party Protest is aimed at Government adherence to the Constitution, opposition to excessive taxation, reduce government spending and waste, while the Occupy movement are about Wealth inequality and Corporate influence of government, basically corruption and the increased handle that large businesses have on our government(source:wikipedia). The mean age range of the Tea Party Protest is much higher than the Occupy Protests(Just look at pictures of people from both protests). First you should understand the Age Crime Curve, which is a basic curve showing crime rates of certain age groups and displaying that age increases the crime rate decreases, not excusing the actions just saying they are more likely via statistics. Secondly you should understand the media's perception and bias of both movements, while originally the media didn't side with the Tea Party Movement, after a few politicians jumped on the bandwagon the media started being very supportive until the dirt started getting kicked up about this, but actually the Tea Party generally was supported by the bigger picture. While the Occupy Movement was against everything the majority of corporations wanted, some specific things that the Occupy movement wanted were a repeal on the ruling that money was freedom of speech, specifically because lack of money is lack of speech. The Occupy movement also drew a hard line on the fact that that the income gap has grown in leaps in and bounds due to the circle-jerk method of deciding CEO pay. I.e you increase my pay, I increase yours, and then we deduct excessive pay from our taxes making the people pay for it. Also at hand is the 15% flat tax on income gained via investment, while anyone who makes money vie exchange of hours can be taxed up to 35%. So basically what the Occupy movement stood for was very contrary to what the majority of corporations stood for, why should they want less power in the government. So then you get to the good part, the modern media is all owned by large corporations, and are backing them. Also due to regulation and licensing it is very difficult(read, impossible) for a start-up television company to get going without some heavy handed backing. Thus the media market is- wait, what was I talking about again?
Anyway point is both movements have negative and positive sides, and your perspective of them is rather skewed and actually feels more like a troll than a real point.
"Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias