Programs cannot be Turing complete. The concept does not apply, just as a basketball cannot be sad. Programming languages can be Turing complete. A robotic Lego "Turing machine" is not Turing complete, but not because it's not a realization of a Turing machine, but because it's not a formalized process. Robotic Legos, however, would be Turing complete, since that is the formal process used to simulate the Turing machine.
What do you mean by this? What is a "decider"? What do you mean by a finite language?
Decision problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
Decider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_that_always_halts
These are fairly foundational concepts when talking about computational complexity.
Ok so upon reflection I think I see what you are getting at. Practical computers are have limited memory and so are, in principle, equivalent to a finite state machine.
So anything a practical computer can do a, perhaps ridiculously large, regular expression can also do?
Is that close?
Why is that stranger than my computer requiring electricity to run?
1. The mathematical definition of Turing completeness: models which can simulate the computation of a hypothetical Turing machine. Idealized circuits are an example of this. Turing machines are an example of this. Programs with infinite memory are an example of this.
2. The colloquial definition of Turing completeness: this is naturally ill-defined, but it roughly means an automated, finite model that performs arbitrary computation. I would say that a robotic Lego Turing machine is Turing complete. C is certainly Turing complete in this sense. Basic HTML isn't. The set of regexes (e.g, unix wildcards) isn't.
However, if I can choose a large enough regex, I can construct a decider for a given finite language. How then are regexes less powerful than C? The answer is they are just as powerful in the finite case, unless we set reasonable limits on what we mean by 'finite' and 'automated.'
This HTML+CSS is not Turing complete. The idealized version of this HTML+CSS is not Turing complete (unless you strangely accept the idealization of a "hand pressing tab space"). This HTML+CSS is also not Turing complete in the colloquial sense: it doesn't live up to the generally accepted notion of automation. It isn't executed by the machine.