Rush has issues, but his message is still consistant.
So what? What does it matter of he has a consistent message if it's a message that's irrelevant to life? Even Rush can't live by his own message. Why take it seriously, then?
According to you, yes, morality as Rush espoused is null and void because Rush couldn't hold himself to his own standards.
His morality, yes. If his moral code can't be succesfully followed, even by himself, then what good is it?
The rest of your straw men aren't even worth bothering with. Why don't you try to find out what I believe before telling me I'm wrong about it?
I think your beef is with any message that goes against absolute freedom with no restraint.
Wrong again, chief. My beef is against hypocritical moralists that think nothing of condemning others for the very behaviors they themselves are guilty of. If Rush's moral code is unlivable, what's the relevance? Again, why admire a man who espouses a strict moral code if there's absolutely no consequences to doing so?