1. Are you suggesting that it should be okay to use racism, sexism, homophobic slurs, or any other sort of hatred towards someone simply because they are only one person and not "a group of people"? 

2. He never mentioned that you said you wish him death, he said; "you think John McCain deserves to have brain cancer", which, based on your post about karma, is true... your words were not misinterpreted.

3. I'm not aware of these posts myself, mainly because I stay out of the politics threads when possible, but if posts such as these you've suggest have been made, I'm sure something has been done about it.

4. This is actually completely false, every single one of my posts was made before you even entered the thread, I didn't make any posts after yours whatsoever. You may think your ban was harsh, although might I remind you that you ignored multiple thread warnings by myself, which was taken into consideration, and we do have a progressive system which you seem to be climbing rather quickly.

1.       No, I didn’t say that, I’ve simply stated what the rules say, and how the rules on this site define hate speech. The admin changed/interpreted the rules to his likening, just to prove that my opinion can be categorized as hate speech.

2.        Read the whole reply and the context, the admin said “John McCain might not be a specific group, but wishing death upon a public figure” so he clearly said that I wish death to the public figure.

3.       No, I am not going to look through the political posts that I’ve read on this side, but I’m sure I have seen people wishing Trump and Clinton to die, and nothing has been done about it.

4.       Again, read what I have said, I was referring to the fact that your warning was made after 4 comments in to the post/topic. When I read a topic/post, I usually read what the OP had to say and replay to him, I don’t read all of the comments that fallow the original post. Also, this site is full with publicity adds, avatars and all sorts of cluster that make my browser slow, so most of the times I don’t read after the first comment.

In the end, what I have said was “what goes around comes around”, and I don’t think that can be categorized as hate speech. Unless, you live on NKorea.

Hate speech isn't limited to specific groups, nor is it limited to the examples given in the rules. You can attempt to talk around your intention, but the point is clear, you're expressing the notion that John McCain deserved to be diagnosed with a terminal illness due to political standpoints that you disagree with. I honestly don't know how you could possibly attempt to defend a post like this. Expressing a negative opinion on someone's politics is not the same as believing someone deserves to die for said politics. 

For the record, I support moderations on any similar posts, regardless of the politican in question. Calling for the death of fellow human beings honestly makes me dissapointed to share the same community as people like this. If you see similar offenses, I invite you to report or PM a moderator to make them aware of the offense.

Final point...but something that people tend to forget, is that your moderation history plays a role in every moderation. You can't look at your post in a vacuum and question why it deserved a certain length. The moderation you received was actually light, given your past history...which to be blunt, is pretty ugly.

I've been here for a long time, and I've seen certain things get overlooked, and the most delicate things hit hard with criticism. Not to mention the many times rules get changed and tweaked without knowing about it. Ex:  Since when Antonio Banderas memes become bad?

All I'm saying is, communication can be a lot better in here, but if something happens again over something trivial then that'll be the last straw.

Expect overtime, because now the neighborhood watch is here.

Decided to highlight that point, as I often find people getting angry with moderations we hand out to one person, but not another, and they don't realize that this is often the biggest reason why. Your history follows you, and as long as you aren't changing what's causing you to be moderated, it will continue to play a role in how we deal with infractions. It's not selective, it is realistic.

That is actually a very blunt excuse for creating an environment where admins can abuse their powers. You pretty much say that is acceptable on this site for an admin to ban an individual that had previous bans, just because they have opened their mouth and stated an opinion. So you pretty much say that in order for me to coexist here in peace, I should just keep my mouth shoot and keep my opinions to myself. That sounds like this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh6_gzY1W7k

Plenty of users here are able to share opinions and not get banned, if you can't share an opinion without getting banned then maybe it's an opinion you should keep to yourself.

If your opinions revolve around saying those you disagree with should get terminal cancer, then yes, I'd say that's what you should do.

Maybe, just maybe those users don’t have any “inconvenient” opinions to share, did you think of that possibility ?

... Expressing a negative opinion on someone's politics is not the same as believing someone deserves to die for said politics. 

... Calling for the death of fellow human beings honestly makes me dissapointed to share the same community as people like this. If you see similar offenses, I invite you to report or PM a moderator to make them aware of the offense.