Patton and The Right Stuff would be #1 and #2 on my list.  

Dances with Wolves is not a film that I would normally select as "Yeah, let's watch that!" But it would definitely make for some good discussion of the accuracy of the events and characters portrayed. Speaking of Costner (do I have to?), you could put Wyatt Earp on the list, or not. Or Tombstone. 

Far and Away is also a possible choice for discussion purposes and not necessarily enjoyment purposes, as it "covers" our Irish immigrant history and the Oklahoma homesteaders. 

It's a bit of a stretch, but The Sting is a great depression-era film. 

The Untouchables would definitely spark some discussion.

And, finally: Does Blazing Saddles count? :)

I've always enjoyed Silverado, El Dorado, McClintock, Magnificent Seven, and, interestingly, Quigley Down Under.

With the discussion of Magnificent Seven and Seven Samurai, I'm surprised no mention has been made of the other, "related" film... The Three Amigos. :) "It's...a sweater!"

Do we have to worry about Rick Scott selling Rubio's vacated Senate seat after we win in November?

I took a different view of the trilogy. The third book was particularly difficult to get through. I found the writing to have deteriorated quite rapidly from the first two. I personally found the themes typical of fascist depictions and directed at the usual targets (c.f., Liberal Fascism).

There is a vomit-inducing line in the third book referencing the original representative government from years gone by: "Frankly, our ancestors don't seem much to brag about. I mean, look at the state they left us in, with the wars and the broken planet" (p. 84 -- thank you, Amazon LookInside). I also found a theme of anti-revolution -- that government overflow and/or fighting for freedom is never worth it.

I have many other books for my children to read before I recommend the Hunger Games.

I have blocked friends on Facebook from any political persuasion, including family members. Much of it is amateurish and unstimulating and definitely not worth my name. I keep a strict "no politics" on my FB posts and comments have kept to it. (I admit that the words "Paul Krugman is a hack" may have appeared once or twice in draft form -- but I never posted.)

Can't remember where I first heard the maxim, "Once learns to hate his friends on Facebook and make friends with strangers on Twitter," but politics on FB comes to mind every time I think of it.

Mainly IE9 for work-related reasons. I like Chrome, but I can't seem to get rid of all the ads for math puzzles.

The rhetoric is consistent with the man, but this is a new level. It's just so... juvenile. So... un-presedential. So...likely to be applauded by his supporters.

Most of all, though, I feel bullied! This is why we need more anti-bullying laws!

This behavior is consistent with someone who has never faced opposition. When, in his career has he been challenged? And not just on the merits of his work (or lack thereof) but on policy/opinion? This is a man who has no clue what it's like to have those around him speak their mind and express ideas that do not match his. At U of C? ACORN? Illinois politics? The Senate? His senior staff?