I only count as "propaganda" posts that suggest the facts are at odds with, well, the facts. That's why I try to provide facts (such as opinion polls, charts, studies, etc.) that back up what I am saying. I know, those are not "facts" per se, but at least they are documentation that I'm not just throwing out completely unfounded bullshit like Bugsy (among others) typically does around here. You may not like my conclusions, but you can't say they are at odds with the available evidence.
I know that means we're probably in for another round of "what does the word really mean," but the fact is that people don't typically refer to stuff like, say, Paul Krugman's op eds, as "propaganda," even though they technically fit the definition.
