By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The tone is highly combative, accusatory, and confrontational, employing strong and moralizing expressions ("vile obscenity," "disgusting things," "frenzied activity"). It frequently resorts to emotional appeals and personal attacks, labeling ministers as failures and incompetent. When criticizing the government’s communication, it repeatedly draws comparisons to Soviet-era propaganda.

The rhetorical style is combative, sharply critical, and sarcastic, employing strong emotional judgments (e.g., "corrupt, costly, hideous, environmentally destructive wind turbines"). The speaker utilizes antitheses (correct premises, flawed conclusions) and dismisses the opposing side's arguments as an embarrassing euphemism. The style is accusatory rather than evidence-based.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive and accusatory, focusing on shattering the government's "myths" and highlighting their incompetence. Strong emotional phrases are employed (e.g., "shot to shreds," "blown sky-high with a roar"), and suspicious questions are posed to the opponent, offering two negative alternatives: political manipulation or a lack of NATO defense capability. The tone is urgent and demands explanations for the public.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, personal, and accusatory, employing direct insults ("foolish," "a failure") aimed at the minister. The tone is urgent and emphasizes the opponent's dishonesty and irresponsibility, drawing a distinction between satisfaction with the country and satisfaction with the government. The appeals are more emotional and moral (leaving debt for children) than purely logical.