Of course it's equal, do you see people taking Phelps' relay-golds away when counting his golds and discussing his greatness? Your last sentence doesn't have anything to do with this matter since Federer won't be in trouble of being forgotten and his doubles medal is just as memorable as his, or Nadal's singles.
Not ridiculous at all considering the only time he was dominant and should've won was in 2004. And to repeat Federer has a gold medal.
Federer > Nadal at Olympics
Murray > Nadal at Olympics
WTF > Olympics
Complete nonsense. If Phelps ONLY had relay medals no one would know who he was or care - can you name the rest of the members of the relay teams that won the swimming gold medals? No. He's great because of his single, individual success. Fed only has a Silver in the individual discipline - a "golden career slam" means achievements in singles events - otherwise why don't we just combine total doubles and singles success - in tennis it doesn't work that way.
As for Fed only "should've won" in 2004 - he was not awful in 2000 but let's give him a pass there - all other 3 times he was the no.1 seed and had a very good shot. It was also always on surfaces that favoured him - outdoor fast HCs in Beijing, grass in 2012, HC in Athens - Nadal was not the favourite in 2008 - he had to get past Djokovic who'd owned him on fast HCs up til then. Fed somehow lost to Berdych and Blake - he had his chances and didn't take them.
Nadals singles record at Olympics = unbeaten.
Federer's record = 4 defeats.
Murray' record = 1 defeat.
I don't even need to say that the Olympics matters more - every single player and their reactions has made it clear and so have the pronouncements of past greats like McEnroe etc. - the tennis media, the players and the past champions all think it's an important event and put it just below a slam. Fed's got a silver at a very important event - his fans should be celebrating that rather than pretending anyone will be caring about the WTF vs the Olympics in a decade's time.