His post was 100% propaganda.
100%, eh? O.K., then, just for instance, take Ichy's pointing out the plain, factual flaws in Coulter's "daffodil" aside: that the figure was arbitrary and made up in the source, but that Coulter treated it as factual; and that the 35% percent genetic similarity was meaningless in relation to morphological similarity (since genomes will match at least 25% just by chance); etc. How exactly is that "propaganda"?