OK, so one guy posted something he found on the internet. Another guy assumed it reflected the first guy's sentiment. First guysaid that he did not necessarily agree. Second guy is dubious of this claim, First guy responds by saying that he didn't say that he disagreed with the sentiment of said article, only with (the supposition of) the second guy, and that Second Guy had no basis for his reasoning. Several others chimed in along the way.
I must admit that my initial reading lead me to believe that there was a significant level of agreement on your part, else there would have been some commentary. That is, of course, not deifinitive proof of your agreement, but certainly is a basis for surmising it. I was ready to dismiss the supposition as incorrect, based upon a parsing of your words as a tacit (at least partial) disavowal of the ideas until your post indicating that you did not state disagreement with the article. (I also don't really care who is right. I just found this to be a strangely interesting exchange.)
So, let's clear this up: First Guy - Do you agree with the sentiments presented in the original list you presented? Second Guy - Why do you care? All of us - Are we aware that there is an impending presidential election, a war, terrorism, illegal immigration, a gas crucnh, the prospect of confiscatory taxes, and dogs and cats living together?