[quote=shantom1]

As usual you show us how easy it is for anyone to get into this business irregardless of their mental capacity.

[/quote]





irregardless is not a word

mental capacity this, Mensa boy

[quote=Squash1]Politics is tough…

I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm



I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=shantom1]

As usual you show us how easy it is for anyone to get into this business irregardless of their mental capacity.

[/quote]





irregardless is not a word

mental capacity this, Mensa boy[/quote]



Next time you rehash some one else’s info you should first research it yourself (you might find this will also be an effective strategy to use in your line of work):



Webster’s online dictionary:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less

Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs

Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.







Keep digging your hole toolbox, your move…

Lol just remembered that Sarah Palin was running for vice president. Could you imagine her meeting with the heads of Goldman, AIG, GM, etc. That would be precious.

[quote=borei] [



irregardless



Indeed.[/quote]



Your wrong dumb as*



you man enough to admit it?

i doubt it.



Irregardless is a term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century.

It is generally listed in dictionaries as “incorrect” or “nonstandard”.





the word is regardless



Grammar Girl here.



Today’s topic is irregardless.



Hi, Grammar Girl. I’m an English teacher in Boston, Massachusetts, and I am freaking out. One of my students tells me that irregardless is now a word, and apparently it’s been added to some dictionaries. Can you clear this up for me. This is serious panic time.







Irregardless versus Regardless



First, let’s talk about irregardless. Some people mistakenly use irregardless when they mean “regardless.” Regardless means “regard less,” “without regard,” or despite something. For example, Squiggly will eat chocolate regardless of the consequences.



The prefix ir- (i-r) is a negative prefix, so if you add the prefix ir to a word that’s already negative like regardless, you’re making a double-negative word that literally means “without without regard.”



Language experts speculate that irregardless comes from a combination of the words regardless and irrespective and that another reason people might say “irregardless” is that they are following the pattern of words like irregular and irreplaceable. But regardless already has the -less suffix on the end, so it’s not like those other words.





Standard versus Nonstandard English



Now, on to dictionaries. Although it’s true that the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary all list the word irregardless, they also note that it’s considered nonstandard. Listing a word as nonstandard is a way that dictionaries concede that a word is in common use, but isn’t really a proper word. Standard language is defined as the language spoken by educated native speakers (1), but comprehensive dictionaries also include nonstandard words, dialect, colloquialisms, and jargon–words like ain’t, conversate, and irregardless. It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it’s there, they think it’s fine to use that word every circumstance. It’s the “Look, it’s a word!” phenomenon. But you have to look a little further to see what kind of word it is, and if it’s nonstandard in some way, then use it with caution. You’ll sound uneducated if you go around saying things like I ain’t gonna conversate with him irregardless of the consequences.



Sometimes words make the transition from nonstandard to standard English. My dictionaries assure me that snuck is a word that falls into this category (although I know that will upset some of you). But since many educated people still rail against irregardless, and the word isn’t commonly seen in edited writing, I don’t believe irregardless is going to make the transition to standard language any time soon.



Prescriptive versus Descriptive Dictionaries



And one final thought about dictionaries—irregardless was listed in every dictionary I checked, but sometimes words will show up in one dictionary and not another. And it’s important to realize that there are different kinds of dictionaries. For example, there are prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries. A prescriptive dictionary focuses on the way the language should be according to traditional rules, and a descriptive dictionary focuses on the language that is actually in use by the population. So a descriptive dictionary is likely to include words that a prescriptive dictionary would leave out. Many older dictionaries are prescriptive, but most modern dictionaries are descriptive. Some people think the American Heritage Dictionary is the most prescriptive modern dictionary (2). It still includes nonstandard words like irregardless, but it seems to make stronger statements against them than other dictionaries.



Book Winners



I have three more book winners this week. Steve F., Mary N., and Greg V. win a copy of my audiobook: Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips to Clean Up Your Writing. They were entered into the giveaway by signing up for the free e-mail newsletter at QuickAndDirtyTips.com. If you sign up for the newsletter you’ll be entered into the giveaway, and you’ll also get a free grammar tip and links to all the new show topics. We send it out every couple of weeks.



This week the Mighty Mommy has a show I enjoyed about how to take a break when you’re sick. I’ve had a bad cold, so it hit home. I’m not a mommy, but I still need help figuring out how to take a break when I’m sick.You can find that show, a transcript of this show, my contact information, and a bunch of other great stuff at QuickAndDirtyTips.com.



That’s all. Thanks for listening.









Irregardless



People think it means:

Regardless.



Actually means:

Not a damned thing.



This is not a word. Now, we have no problem with making up words (if a particular scent can only be described as “fartalicious,” we reserve the right to call it so). The problem with this one is “regardless” already means something isn’t worth regard (that’s why the “less” is there) so adding the “ir” to it means… it’s worth regarding again? Who knows.



Should you care?

If there’s ever a time to speak up, this is probably it.



Mainly because this is one of those words used almost exclusively by people trying to sound smarter than they are.   HAHAHA





Remind them that when using fake words to at least try to use ones that have some kind of meaning, if they want to avoid unnecessary c***ulance when speaking.

I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm



I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job. [/quote]

[quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=gabe]



Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don’t you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?







Let me guess.   



college prof?

IT geek?

DMV?



Classic dem wimp. The losers that got their butts kicked in school.

You hate free markets, because you cant compete.



the subprime melt down was a function of 2 main things;



1. Liberal ideals



"get as many people in homes as possible"



fannie   fdr

fredie   lbj



jimmys “enterprise zones”   

“mandatory” lending to low income people



bubba’s witch doctor loans

etc etc



2. the failure of regulation (government)



government sucks at everything

no different here

911 happened because the FBI and CIA failed



katrina FEMA



on and on



tax code

epa

ira

hud

social security

medicaid

medicare

fema

amtrack

cash for clunckers

etc etc



government sucks



free markets create wealth



retail salesmen?    ok if u like



I made 650 grand last year.    a horrible year.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Primo] [quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job. [/quote]

You made 650k? That’s great! (by The way, is that what you ‘produced’ or the money you made?)



unfortunately that doesn’t mean you know anything about economics. It just means you can sell. I get it that it’s better than selling at the mall, so you got that.

Primo,



glass steagall had nothing to do with subprime. I get it you guys are in sales but it’s a bit shocking how little you seem to know about economics and the financial world.



I provided a couple of links but there are many, many more. Anyone who at this stage thinks the CRA had anything to do with the crisis just doesn’t know what they are talking about.

You keep saying you guys in sales.  What exactly do you do?  Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links.

It’s a shame that the intelligent conversations are often interupted by the ramblings of a few individuals who are true embarrassments to the industry.

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=gabe]



Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don’t you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?







Let me guess.   



college prof?

IT geek?

DMV?



Classic dem wimp. The losers that got their butts kicked in school.

You hate free markets, because you cant compete.



the subprime melt down was a function of 2 main things;



1. Liberal ideals



"get as many people in homes as possible"



fannie   fdr

fredie   lbj



jimmys “enterprise zones”   

“mandatory” lending to low income people



bubba’s witch doctor loans

etc etc



2. the failure of regulation (government)



government sucks at everything

no different here

911 happened because the FBI and CIA failed



katrina FEMA



on and on



tax code

epa

ira

hud

social security

medicaid

medicare

fema

amtrack

cash for clunckers

etc etc



government sucks



free markets create wealth



retail salesmen?    ok if u like



I made 650 grand last year.    a horrible year.



[/quote]

Here’s something I’ve never understood about right wingers: the implication that any private sector company will always be better run than any public sector agency/state/city/municipality.  It’s this supposed “given” you guys always pull out.  Government sucks.  Business is great.  I don’t buy it.  Sure, government can be a bureaucracy, and there are certainly many well run private sector companies out there.  But, as any rational person who has worked for a wirehouse or anywhere in corporate America can attest, there are more than enough private sector train wrecks out there.  All you have to do is look at any recession to see just how many private sector companies fail miserably at what they do.  2008 showed us how many banks and mortgage companies are garbage.  2000 showed us how many tech companies were garbage. The S&L crisis… I could go on… the list is endless.  The fact of the matter is that both governments and private companies are run by human beings.  Human beings are not infallible.  Some municipal, city and state governments are run quite well.  It’s disingenuous and lazy to assume that government is always bad and private sector is always good.  It’s simply not the case.  As with anything, there is nuance.  But most idealogues don’t get that.  It doesn’t jibe with their lazy and narrow-minded thought process.

fact:humans are greedy



without incentive to better themselves, you get the DMV



next question?



Government should do the minimum functions to allow society to function



(please see T. Jefferson, 1776)





call the IRS, tell me how that call goes?



amtrack=chap 11



post office=chap 11



medicare=black hole of waste



EPA=see medicare above



medicaid=see medicare above



etc etc



subprime? govt failed (chris cox, barney frank, cris dodd etc etc)



s and l crisis?   govt failed



SOCIAL SECURITY STARTED OUT WITH A LITTLE IDEA THAT WAS TO BE VOLANTARY AND ABOUT 1% OF INCOME.   ITS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE THE WAY PEOPLE PAY FOR RETIREMENT



THIS IS WHAT GOVT DOES. IT GROWS.   LIKE CUDZU

AND NEVER STOPS

NEVER GETS SMALLER

GIVE AWAY CRAP CREATED BY POLITICIANS BUYING VOTES-PERIOD



free markets NEVER fail.   (see: A. Smith)

they ALWAYS do what they are suppose to do (humans ARE greedy)



supply side, trickle down, voodoo economics…whatever you choose to call it WORKS



cut taxes, cut regulation and red tape and let people (see above: greedy) work their magic i the free markets



the answer is a MAN WITH A JOB, not you give-away welfare crap



as Ronnie said in 1969     



"HELP THE FACTORY OWNER, YOU HELP THE FACTORY WORKER"



pelosi/reid 750 billion pork feast



give me a break, hey Gabe, have you read this MF thing?



govt “creating jobs”.   govt does’nt create anything



Russian govt created jobs, how did that turn out?



govt can MOVE tax dollars around.   take taxes from you and me and pay some guy in an orange suit to stand around “fixing” a road.



check out western europes markets since march, even THESE socialist pussies are capitialistic then we are since Obama nation took over.   



well gabe my friend, we wont have to worry about Obama nation much longer because he is DOA.   done.   see ya   drive safe and thanks for playing.



from 71% to 47%   



independents=gone     

moderates=gone

anti-bush repubs=gone



Jimmy Carter part 2



just like 1980

we will get another Ronnie and supply side will be BACK

[quote=gabe] You made 650k? That’s great! (by The way, is that what you ‘produced’ or the money you made?)



unfortunately that doesn’t mean you know anything about economics. It just means you can sell. I get it that it’s better than selling at the mall, so you got that.[/quote]



Well Gabe,

as horrible as the period starting with Jimmy Cayne’s conference call telling the troops that a few billion had disappeared from a couple of their hedge funds…this is BY FAR the period where my team and my self have added HUGE amounts of value to our clients. (just like 1987,1990,1998,2002).

This is where we guide people to NOT fall into the trap and the ultimate paradox (you “feel” the worst about stocks at the best buying periods) of investing that makes the MAJORITY of people fail at beating the risk free rate of return over time.

I have been a portfolio manager for about 20 years and have audited number for 14 years.   We have “produced” an incredible amount of value to our clients.

Ill save giving you the details because you will just call me a liar.   thats ok.



The average no-load genius (like you)is OUT of this market. (check Trim Tabs). Like ALWAYS the crowd has been very wrong.   Selling low and buying high.



its NEVER changes



So you and that pussy, holier the thou John Boggle can KMA.

Check the FACTS.



EVERY SINGLE POPULAR NO-LOAD (INDEX TOO)HAS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER RETURNS FOR THE ACTUAL INVESTOR (HIS/HER BUYS AND SELLS) THE THE TRUE RETURN OF THE FUND.



many HAVE NEGATIVE LONG TERM NUMBERS    



I sleep like a baby and Gabe, old buddy



…i don’t have to work anymore.



I have followed my own advice on saving and investing over the years.