If you accept the idea that man has some choice (and by 'choice' I mean the ability to decide between alternatives, not just the ability to do what 'he wants') then we have no disagreement!
We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will.
That man is responsible for sin and his own damnation, not God.
Between WHAT alternatives? Does man have the ability to decide between choosing and rejecting Christ? Yes. Does he have a cognitive ability to deny God's election? No. The reason we do disagree is because the relationship you see between the two is the exact opposite of what I see. You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around.
We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will.
Your statement is not consistent. The first half you make God sovereign, but in the second you relegate Him to a prophetic role. What it should read is either "We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He wills" or "We agree that God is in partial control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will."
That man is responsible for sin and his own damnation, not God.
I agree. Man is condemned by His own sinfulness, his own choice to reject God.
I actually came up with an interesting way to look at the relationship we're debating. I think I can actually better explain it using program logic, so if I get a chance I'll try to post the "source code" for the operation of redemption :)