Greenpeace International

Approval Rate: 55%

55%Approval ratio

Reviews 22

Sort by:
  • by

    irishgit

    Mon Apr 14 2008

    An utterly cynical fundraising operation that has no more sincerity than a mobbed up loanshark. Their campaigns are designed around "saving" attractive animals, some of which aren't even threatened, while ignoring unattractive, unmarketable creatures that are genuinely at risk. They are also bullies, frequently targetting small communities or less sophisticated groups by bringing the full weight of their media savvy down on them. They are a bunch of cappacino sucking, concrete condo dwelling city slickers and a disgrace to the environmental movement.

  • by

    genghisthehun

    Sun Mar 16 2008

    I wonder if the Newfies are all done clubbing the baby seals this year?

  • by

    kevin_t

    Fri Aug 04 2006

    They are standing up for what they believe in and they take a bad image for that. People are against but you have the Japanese killing thousands of whales for "scienific research." They're trying to make some good in this world and sometimes it takes extreme actions to get people that are ignorant to the fact of what is actually going on in the world to realize what distruction is happening.

  • by

    odbtx2ea

    Tue Nov 08 2005

    The far-right hates Greenpeace because they can't stand anyone stealing their thunder by being as extreme as they are. Greenpeace may be hypocritical at times, but they have more guts than the money-grubbing, big-business worshipping, shortsighted, selfish little Republican robots will ever have on their best day. Go club a baby seal, cowards.

  • by

    numbah16tdhaha

    Tue Nov 08 2005

    Well, that was a funtastic rant. They do some good things here and there, but their extremist image prevents many like myself from lending any kind of support to their cause. Still, I gave them three stars, which I'm sure will leave the ranters grasping at straws when they consider that I am a little Republican robot! P.S. I have never clubbed a baby seal.

  • by

    atanarjuat

    Mon Apr 18 2005

    Start offering solutions besides finding problems.

  • by

    cutegurl

    Fri Apr 15 2005

    Radical, tree hugging, animal lover freaks. Really, if you love animals and nature so much, go live with them and leave the rest of us sane people alone to live in peace without your insitent whining. I do think that we should try to keep our air clean but when a farmer is fined $800,000 for building on a spot designated as a habitat for an endangered FLY, that's just going too far. That's a true story and it's a result of Greenpeace whining. Animals are for eating, not for saving. I mean really people.

  • by

    white_diamond

    Tue Dec 28 2004

    Greenpeace International is a very radical organization and will never get a cent of my money. They go way beyond the boundries.

  • by

    mrpolitical

    Tue Dec 14 2004

    They may have a good cause but their so caught up in being fanatics that no one listens to them. And THAT'S why I like to drive my SUV right in front of their buildings.

  • by

    larrynh

    Mon Mar 01 2004

    One of the other comments here says that humans suck and animals rule. Thats the kind of comment that makes me shake my head in wonder. Humans ARE animals. When the tree huggers and whale humpers try to distance us from nature is when the earth gets screwed up. If you want to understand nature, live like nature. Be part of the predator/prey cycle, grow your own food, be a hunter/gatherer like ALL OTHER ANIMALS. These guys are whack jobs just like PETA.

  • by

    yourmamma

    Fri Jan 23 2004

    This is the thing... I do think we we should have clean air. I think Humans do need to take care of the environment as best we can. However, Greenpeace International is #2 on my list for annoying orgainizations list. (Only behind the ACLU) I think cities are more beutiful than a wetland. I think that animals are here for us to eat, the kind that is normal to eat anyway not like mice, that's gross, anyway I think sometimes paving a road over an animals habitat to cut a commute can help the environment (see the Legacy Highway debate that's going on in Utah right now), because cars won't pollute the air as much. So if all you tree huggers and whale humpers love trees and animals so much, you can go live with them, and then you can leave us alone! YOU ARE SO ANNOYING!

  • by

    moosekarloff

    Mon Dec 08 2003

    They're got the right general idea, i.e., that we have to be the stewards of the environment, that we have a responsibility to the earth that supports us and to furture generations who will inherit this world, that we owe something to nature, that animal species are to be valued, not written off as some lower forms of the Christian Order. However, this is a politically maladroit lot, whose misguided and idiotic support of emptysuit birdbath Ralph Nader in 2000 essentially handed that drooling turd from Texas a free pass to the Oval Office.

  • by

    dickgozinya

    Fri Aug 01 2003

    Fu<king Fanatics!

  • by

    gups11

    Fri May 16 2003

    Not all but alot of there higher members are treelovin Osama Binladens'. Eco-terrorists they balance out the extreme right wing racist groups. If they went about there goals in a peacful, rational and don't block streets because a person might be trying to feed their kids by working at a factory. They make things more difficult for normal people or kill them when they put a nail in a tree and it flings out and kills a logger. Get a real job or go into politics, but stop being an enviormental NAZI

  • by

    getback

    Mon May 12 2003

    A leftwing organization more a kin to an out of control animal.A disgrace to the call this a charity organization.

  • by

    shukhevych

    Wed Oct 30 2002

    nutcases

  • by

    loki13

    Tue Apr 09 2002

    Why don't all you environmentalists go hug a tree.

  • by

    josefinas

    Mon Jul 09 2001

    Humans suck, animals rule. Is the law of the earth, just look at us. The fact that we need a Greepeace, to make it right for all the things we screwed up, just speaks for it selves. That´s about it, I guess. By the way, don´t you dare to rate this not helpful!

  • by

    janey_lane

    Sat Jul 07 2001

    All these low ratings show me that humans, once again care more about their own scrawny (or fat) asses then about animals. They were here first, they didn't decide that humans would put them in cages, have them instinct, polute the planet with oil leaks, cars and air planes. They did not give humans the right to drug them, use them for 'our' own personal gain against deseases that would decrease the overpopulation of the world. Humans suck, animals rule. Give them back what's rightfully theirs... a clean enviorment. And that is where this organisation comes in. If they weren't out there making an effort, who would?

  • by

    samiam

    Mon Jun 25 2001

    For a moment in High School (my uninformed, naive self) started receiving information on GreenPeace..Thought it was pretty cool, put the sticker on my notebook maybe even sent in money..can't remember. However, as I learned more about this group I learned it is led by extremists who really have more of an interest in politics than the environment. Instead of trying to educate and inform..they are clouding the truth and continue to rant about things they do not truly know about. I do feel strongly about the preservation of our environment..however we need to find a middle ground, Greenpeace distorts facts and simply lies. Choose your support of environmental causes carefully..start locally if you are passionate..don't simply jump on the Greenpeace bandwagon.

  • by

    afterglow70

    Sun Jun 17 2001

    I am sorry if this upsets anyone, but I believe that if it weren't for some pharmaceutical companies testing thier drugs on animals, several lives would be lost. I don't see anyone else volunteering thier bodies for these experiments. I think that going on to someones property and banging pots to chase away the wildlife is disgraceful. I feel that that is trespassing also. You should be ashamed of yourselves for doing it. Have you ever had your family in your car, going 65mph down the highway and hit a deer? Hmmmmm.. it is not a pleasent scene. I will tell you that I have done it.. twice! In the state of Kansas, the deer hunter w/ a bow has about a month to hunt deer. The hunter w/ a rifle has 2 wks. That is it. I think it should be a two month deal. Why? Well, the deer are sooooo over populated here and there are more people that have deer accidents then any other accident in the state of Kansas. And now they are allowing rehibilitated Elk (which are twice the size of white tail deer... Read more

  • by

    ruby9916

    Sat Jun 16 2001

    It's a tribute to their marketing prowess that this group still commands respect from so many. The bankrupt morals of the group were recently exposed when they refused to criticize the acts of terrorism (oh yeah, they call it "eco-terrorism") done on behalf of "Earth Liberation Front". It was also remarkable that their original founder accused the group under its current leadership of being intellectually dishonest in making their claims about disappearing rain forest. The truth is that the lefties who hate capitalism and America had the rug pulled out from under them when communism collapsed so now they hide under the environmentalist cloak. This is why there's never a rational discusion of the science of global warming; it must be taken on FAITH that this is a crisis that demands the end of free markets, etc. It's a shame that the well-meaning people who support Greenpeace do not take the time to learn about free-market environmentalism, which explores ways of being good stewards... Read more

This topic is on the following list(s)

Add to new list