By Months: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and personal. Strong emotional comparisons are employed, likening the state's actions to the 1990s mafia and referencing the Estonian film classic, "Nukitsamees." Opponents (such as Liisa Pakosta) are directly accused of lying, and their health is questioned. The speaker repeatedly demands specific figures and adequate responses, while simultaneously stressing the absence of law and justice.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and dramatic, employing emotional appeals by linking the car tax to Soviet communist policy and forced collectivization. The speaker addresses the Minister of Finance directly, asking pointed questions and offering him ironic recognition. The style is formal, but the substance is sharply confrontational.

The speaker employs an extremely confrontational and combative style, using highly emotional language and resorting to personal attacks (e.g., gifting a smoked pig's head to the Speaker of the Riigikogu, or labeling a journalist a police collaborator). He issues direct challenges for debates (to the minister) and utilizes powerful ideological terminology ("digital concentration camp," "totalitarianism"). He criticizes opponents for making decisions "based on feelings" and draws on historical comparisons (the Novgorod Veche).

The speaking style is highly combative, dramatic, and forceful, utilizing strong emotional and historical appeals. He compares the government's actions to the Gestapo, the NKVD, and the Stasi, referencing the Soviet era and stressing the absence of independent decision-making power (Moscow vs. Brussels). He blends detailed legal arguments (e.g., the failure to transpose a directive) with sharp personal attacks and rhetorical questions to underscore the gravity of the situation ("What is to be done?" and "a revolution must be made").

The rhetorical style is combative, sharp, and critical, employing strong and emotional language aimed at the coalition ("servilely groveling," "cruel-faced," "brutality"). The speaker blends legal argumentation (references to laws and sections) with populist appeals to "the people," and demands that coalition deputies take responsibility and feel shame. He frequently uses rhetorical questions and direct challenges to the presenters, demanding short and clear answers.

The rhetorical style is sharp, confrontational, and emotionally charged, employing strong expressions to describe the government's inaction (e.g., "spits in the face," "mania grandiosa"). The speaker often poses rhetorical questions and demands that opponents prove their erudition, accusing them of playing political games and telling fairy tales. He uses comparisons drawn from everyday life (cleaner, driver) and strong metaphors (pyramid scheme, the king is naked).

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, confrontational, and accusatory, employing strong personal attacks like "dictator," "maffia," and "liar." The speaker blends legal and procedural arguments (citing specific sections) with emotional appeals, accusing the government of suffering from a massive "cancer" of lies. He also criticizes opponents for their appearance and behavior, for instance, referring to one rapporteur as a "little flower."

The speaking style is extremely combative, provocative, and often sarcastic, employing strong emotional language ("intolerable injustice," "rats in the granary," "Estonian banana republic," "What a farce of a bill"). The speaker utilizes personal anecdotes (such as the rating survey in Järva County) and rhetorical traps ("Why don't you want the people of Estonia to have better health?"). The speaker is blunt and unafraid to launch personal attacks (e.g., accusing Hussar of creating a "circus").