Which one?

Both are grammatical, Oristar. But a good explanation of the difference escapes me at present, so I'll leave it to others.

Thanks.
But it seems no one comes here

Alright, but it's only a guess.

1) Means he's too cocky to deal with, right now. Maybe he'll settle down, later.

2) Means too cocky to deal with, even in the future.

Remember, I said guess.

I would say: Mr. Clinton is a real genius, but Mr. Clinton is too cocky to deal with.

The reason I would say, 'deal with' instead of 'to be dealt with' - although both are grammatically fine, is because dealing with someone just implies an interaction or communication, whereas having someone 'dealt with' implies some sort of conclusion or means to an end.

I don't know if that's clear to you - I guess I mean that dealing with someone is an ongoing process whereas having 'dealt' with someone implies a somewhat negative conclusion.

It is very clear now.
Thank you!
And thank you all.

Both sentences mean the same thing but "to be dealt with" uses the deplored passive voice.

Seemingly, Strunk & White cast a long shadow, extending their nonsense all the way to the UK.

I didn't say it is deplored by me! My MS Word grammar checker keeps telling me about it, but I cheerfully ignore its admonitions.

Good to hear, Contrex but you're not special in that regard, though, don't get me wrong, you are special. Everyone ignores such prescriptive nonsense simply because it is nonsense.

But their nonsense has obviously spread the world over.