By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The rhetorical style is critical, questioning, and concerned, focusing on logical and technical arguments (e.g., the lack of reserve capacity). Accusations of concealing information are used ("it is being hidden very diligently"), and direct, detailed questions are posed, demanding concrete answers.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, populist, and insistent, especially when discussing issues of sovereignty and the economy. Strong metaphors are employed (e.g., "steamroller," "the jaw-flapping club," "ballast"), along with direct emotional appeals to the public. The speech concludes with a call for spontaneous resistance against the government's "brutality," balancing the legal analysis with a powerful emotional charge.

The rhetorical style is initially formal and inquisitive, but it quickly shifts to critical and cautionary, emphasizing the danger of heading down the "slippery slope." The speaker relies on logical arguments to demonstrate the injustice and inequality involved in the application of discretionary power, while simultaneously employing emotional warnings regarding the potential for abuse of authority.

The rhetorical style is passionate and critical, blending legal arguments (such as constitutional violations) with appeals to emotional and traditional values (the image of a respectable taxi driver, the white shirt). The text employs sharp and sometimes derogatory language ("the inarticulate," "Ugri-Mugri language," "scam taxi drivers") and uses personal anecdotes (being misled, receiving an abusive letter) to illustrate the issues. The overall tone is urgent and insistent, demanding that "order be established."

The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and condemnatory, aimed especially at the coalition members. Sharp language is employed, accusing the coalition of hypocrisy ("sycophantically fawning") and merely following orders. The speaker strongly appeals to democratic legitimacy and the will of the people, utilizing the interventions of the Chancellor of Justice as an emotional argument.

The rhetorical style is sharp, direct, and provocative, presenting difficult tasks to the presenter and demanding specific, individualized answers. Logical arguments (such as unconstitutionality) are used, mixed with criticism aimed at the coalition—for instance, questioning their poor attendance at the session. The speaker demands accountability and clear, concise communication, delivered in a way that is understandable even to coalition members.

The rhetorical style is instructive and self-assured, offering the public a concrete legal action plan for challenging the car tax. The tone is logical and procedure-focused, concentrating on arguments based on the violation of law. The speaker attempts to convince the audience of the effectiveness of their strategy ("Why is this good? Because it stops the implementation of the car tax").