The kind of thing Dubya would say when he means to say "regardless". Its a bastardized version of the word "regardless", with an added superfluous "ir" added at the start. All you have to do is think about it logically to see that its not a grammatically correct word, just a mistake that unfortunetly became popular. You dont have to be a pompous or rude asshole to correct someone, just somebody who thinks its important that they dont compromise the English language to cater for people who cant be arsed to do their English homework.

To be honest, I dont mind people using words like this in normal speech, but I cant stand to see it in print. People like journalists and authors, I believe, have a responsibility to be at least somewhat gramatically correct.

According to certain actual, credible dictionaries (which I cannot name because of potential legal issues), irregardless evolved in the early 20th Century United States from the word "regardless". Frequently those who engage in hypercorrection (yes, that is a word, look it up) say that there is "no such word". However, this is misleading and ignores both the inevitable evolution of the English language as well as the authoritative comments of most English dictionaries, which do in fact recognize it as a valid colloquialism. (Most do so whilst still observing that most people do not consider it proper in "formal" English).

The argument that the word contains a double negative and and is therefore improper ignores countless other commonly used words which do the very same thing; e.g., "debone", "unravel". A similar argument could also be made for the seemingly nonsensical yet true proposition that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.

It also fails to take into consideration that even standardized, "proper" English has very few firm rules, that most rules of proper English have many exceptions, and that formal vocabulary, grammar, spelling, etc. vary from place to place. (Colour/color; 'quotes'/"quotes"; "punctuation inside quotes,"/"punctuation outside quotes", possessive's apostrophe/its lack of apostrophe, while/whilst, and the like.)

Of course, this does not excuse the complete and utter abuse of English by many people today; e.g. "u" for "you", "ur" for "your"/"you're", "i" for "I", "wat" for "what", etc. However, "irregardless" does not fall into this blatantly vulgar category.

without lack of regard.

Misused by ignorant people meaning regardless or by me to annoy my girlfriend

Regardless, but, like,
Extra.

This is a word used by stupid American's. They mix words together in much the same way as you see their rather poorly educated President, Mr Bush, make up words on the spur of the moment.

If you examine any sentence where someone uses the word "irregardless" and you replace it with the word "regardless" then the sentence means exactly the same thing.

It is therefore a totally superfluous word and is actually a fanastic way of spotting a dumb-ass. Another word that help you spot a dumb-ass is supposebly (where the actual word is supposedly). There are many other examples :) used mostly by dumb Americans.

Without lack of disregard.

you all are a bunch of babies. silverspoon up the derriere 1984 babytalk newspeakers. every word does not have to make sense, thats not the way language evolves. words get their origins from people using the language, they dont originate from a textbook or formula.

irr means not.
and regardless means, no matter what i guess.
so i guess it means not meaning no matter what?
whatever, no one uses this word anyways.
it sucks.