I may most likely write a comment on the hubs expressing my stands on the issue. However, the exact strategy may be different for different levels of disagreement. Let me explain this through some examples.
Case-1: Suppose my disagreement with the hub is normative in nature. Which means, suppose a hubber makes a value judgement that "one should always tell the truth", I may ignore it.
Case-2: On certain ideas such as a statement like "Inflation is good for the economy", I may argue openly through comments expressing my opinion and arguments against the stated opinion. In some cases however, I may still keep quite. For example, suppose in a hub that explains the methods on how to make money, or say how to quit smoking, etc., and I disagree with the writer. Then most probably I shall not react through comments unless a strategy suggested by the hubber is against the larger social norms of morality and ethics.
Case-3: On factual issues, I shall certainly argue with references on the issue. I shall ignore typographical issues.
Case-4: In all the above cases, I shall remain polite but firm. But, if I know the hubber personally and otherwise have a lot of respect for the person, then I would personally write a mail to the person instead of posting comments on the hub, no matter how seriously I disagree.
So, the exact strategies will be based on the merit of the specific case.