We're one and the same person, I just switched over to my laptop. I don't think there's anything unintelligible about my response. In fact, I think it's pretty simple. The organization of thought is the process of determining action; everyone does it, only some people do it on a more macro-cosmic scale (i.e. on a more long-term basis, in case you decide to nitpick) than others. I don't really want to imply that you're being an ideologue, but did you just say that my response is 'barely intelligible' because you feel you're on the defensive against everyone who doesn't outright agree with you?
As far as any sort of ideology coloring your perspective goes, I try to avoid that argument at all costs. The only reason I do so is because I don't like to assume that everyone who isn't 'on my side' willfully rejects what is proven to them to be irrefutably true with data, evidence, study, etc. Thing is, a lot of people like to accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them of doing this, and then attempting to gain support by implying that they do not do such a thing, which further implies that their conclusions must be infallible. I think this is a really subversive method of argument.